^%. \/ -A'-: %.** .•^■. \/ 







.' ^^'\ \ 









■7 vT ■' 









. . t 



/"A A *^A» /Of O /T\ 



-ov*' .^:^ 



V, • O N 




























V ^'*^- <^ Ap 






PUBLICATIONS 

OF THE 

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA 



SERIES IN POLITICAL ECONOMY AND PUBLIC LAW 

American Commerciai. Legislation Before 1789. 

By Albert A. Giesecke, Cloth, $1.50. 
History of New England Fisheries. 

By Raymond McFarland. Cloth, $2.00. 
The Sugar Refining Industry in the United States. 

By Paul L. Vogt. Cloth, $1.50. 
The Economic History of the Anthracite-Tidewater Canals. 

By Chester Lloyd Jones. Cloth, $1.50. 
The Passenger Traffic of Railways. 

By Walter E. Weyl. Boards, $1.50. 
Railway Co-operation. 

By Charles S. Langstroth and Wilson Stilz. 
(Double Monograph.) Boards, $1.50. 
The Organization of Ocean Commerce. 

By J. Russell Smith. Boards, $1.50. 
The Consular Service of the United States. 

By Chester Lloyd Jones. Cloth, $1.50. 
A History of the American Whale Fishery. 

By Walter Sheldon Tower, Cloth, $1.50. 
Factory Legislation in Pennsylvania. 

By J. Lynn Barnard. Cloth, $1.50. 
The Federal Constitution of Germany. (Second ed.) 

Translated by Edmund J. James. 50 cents. 
The Federal Constitution of Switzerland. 

Translated by Edmwnd J. James. 50 cents. 
The German Bundesrath. 

By James Harvey Robinson. 75 cents. 
The Consumption of Wealth. (Second ed.) 

By Simon N. Patten. 50 cents. 
The Theory of Dynamic Economics. 

By Simon N. Patten. $1.00. 
Our Sheep and the Tariff. 

By William Draper Lewis. $1.50. 
The Anti-Rent Agitation in the State of New York. 
(1839-1846.) 

By Edwa/rd P. Cheyney. 50 cents. 
Currency Reform. 

By Joseph French Johnson. 25 cents. 
The Philadelphia Negro : A Social Study. 

By William E. Burkhardt Du Bois. Paper, $2.00; cloth, $2.50. 

D. APPLETON AND COMPANY, Agents, NEW YORK. 



AMERICAN COMMERCIAL 
LEGISLATION BEFORE 1789 



BY 



ALBERT ANTHONY GlESECKE, Ph.D. 

President of the University of Cuzco, Peru. Formerly Instructor in 

Political Science at Cornell University and the 

University of Pennsylvania 




UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA 

D. APPLETON AND COMPANY, Agents, NEW YORK 

1910 






.0^" 



Copyright, 1910 
By the University of Pennsylvania 



J. F. TAPLEY CO. 

NEW YORK 



©CI.A275o^i8 



PREFACE 

In the preparation of the work, which has extended over 
several years, the Charlemagne Tower collection of colonial 
laws in the rooms of the Historical Society of Pennsyl- 
vania, Philadelphia, has been of great assistance. Some of 
the material was secured in London at the Public Record 
Office and at the British Museum. Several books and man- 
uscripts found in the United States were difficult of access, 
and much labor was required to secure the data contained 
in them. Acknowledgment is hereby made of the assistance 
received from the Carnegie Institution of Washington in the 
collection and preparation of materials for this monograph. 

The author desires especially to thank Professor Emory 
R. Johnson of the University of Pennsylvania for the as- 
sistance he has given in planning and preparing this book, 
and for the many suggestions he has made during the prog- 
ress of the work. Thanks are also due to Professors Jere- 
miah W. Jenks, Charles A. Hull, and Frank A. Fetter of 
Cornell University for criticisms of the manuscript. 

Albert A. Giesecke. 
Cuzco, Peru, July, 1910. 



i 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Chapter I. England's Commercial Policy Toward the 
American Colonies. 

PAGE 

The Mercantile System 1 

The Development of England's Commercial Policy .... 3 

Supervision of Colonial Legislation 9 

Chapter II. Import and Export Duties. 

Import Duties 18 

Scope of the Import Duties 18 

Import Duties on Direct Trade 21 

English Goods and Imposts Thereon 26 

Import Duties on Negro Slaves 31 

Free Trade and the Importation of Goods 36 

Retaliatory Acts 40 

Drawbacks 41 

Export Duties 42 

Scope of the Export Duties 42 

Purpose of the Export Duties .43 

Export Duties on Tobacco 45 

Export Duties on Lumber 49 

Export Duties on Skins and Furs 53 

Chapter III. Bounties, Inspection Laws and Embargoes. 

Bounties 59 

Bounties for Production 60 

Bounties for Exportation 71 

Inspection Regulations 74 

The General Inspection Policy in Outline 74 

Embargoes 80 

Purpose and Extent of Embargoes 80 

Administration of the Embargo Acts 84 

Chapter IV. Tonnage Duties. 

Purpose of the Tonnage Duties 86 

Tonnage Duties and English Ships 88 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Exemptions to Home Shipping 90 

Exemptions to Ships of Other Colonies 96 

Chapter V. Port Eegulations. 

Navigation Regulations 100 

Ports of Entry and Port Control 100 

Registry of Vessels 112 

Port Fees 113 

Extent and Policy of Port Fees 113 

Pilotage 118 

Appointment and Duties of Pilots . . . . . . . .118 

Compulsory and Optional Pilotage 121 

Chapter VI. Commercial Policy from the Revolution to 
1789. 

Commercial Legislation by the States 123 

Embargoes During the Revolution ........ 123 

Tariff Legislation 125 

The Shipping Policy 137 

Commercial Legislation by the Confederacy 140 

Attempts of Congress to Regulate Commerce 140 

The Annapolis and Philadelphia Conventions . . . . 146 

Chapter VII. Conclusions 149 

Bibliography 154 

Index 165 



AMERICAN COMMERCIAL LEGIS- 
LATION BEFORE 1789 

CHAPTER 1 

ENGLAND'S COMMEECIAL POLICY TOWARD 
THE AMERICAN COLONIES 

The Mercantile System, As a background for the com- 
mercial legislation of the American colonies, we should 
keep in mind the purposes which these colonies were ex- 
pected to serve in the general scheme of the British Em- 
pire.i Although England's colonial policy was more 
liberal than any other contemporaneous colonial system, 
yet it too was limited by the system of mercantilism which 
was prevalent in Europe during most of the seventeenth 
and eighteenth centuries.^ It was under such an influ- 
ence that England shaped her commercial policy towards 
the American colonies. 

The general features of the mercantile system have be- 
come well-known through the account which Adam Smith 
has given us, although this account has been subject to 
qualification. Two fundamental characteristics of the 
system were founded in the belief (a) that wealth con- 
sisted in money, — gold and silver, and (b) that these 
precious metals could be brought to a country and kept 

1 Hertz in "The Old Colonial System'* expresses himself as follows : 
"In actual fact, the old colonial policy was based upon the very sensi- 
ble ideal of a self-sufficing empire," p. 38. 

2 Smith, Wealth of Nations, III, 322. 

1 



2 POLICY TOWARD COLONIES 

there only by means of a favorable balance of trade, i. e., 
by an excess of exports over imports.^ As a logical con- 
sequence, the importation of foreign goods for home con- 
sumption had to be curtailed or prohibited; the exporta- 
tion of the produce of domestic industry increased. Such 
a system made it incumbent upon the state to regulate 
the foreign commerce of the nation in order to secure an 
excess of exports, and thereby preserve and increase the 
circulation of money in the State. Difficulties were placed 
in the way of the importation of manufactured goods, and 
home industries were encouraged by restricting the ex- 
port of raw materials; home shipping was encouraged, as 
were also the fisheries, by restricting or forbidding foreign 
competition; bounties on exports and imports for certain 
classes of goods were provided, especially on imports of 
raw materials from the colonies; the colonies themselves 
were looked upon primarily as sources of profit and their 
trade was reserved, with exceptions, to the merchants of 
the mother country. 

Such were some of the salient features of the mercantile 
system which was built up on the whole for the benefit of 
the producer or the merchant, and not the consumer. The 
spirit of this system underlies practically the whole of the 
development of England's commercial policy toward her 
American colonies.^ 

Earlier writers have condemned England's colonial pol- 
icy on account of the underlying idea that the colonies 
were restricted in their commercial activities. Thus 
Adam Smith tells us that ^Ho prohibit a great people 
from making all that they can of every part of their own 

3 Smith, W^ealth of Nations, III, 104; Hertz, op. cit., p. 38. 

4 Although the term "American colonies" is used in the sense of 
England's continental colonies, we must not overlook the fact that the 
British West Indies and other possessions also came under the influ- 
ence of British colonial policy. 



POLICY TOWARD COLONIES 3 

produce, or from employing their stock and their indus- 
try in the way that they judge most advantageous to 
themselves, is a manifest violation of the most sacred 
rights of mankind." ^ Starting with such a preconception, 
many writers have concluded that the application of such 
a principle must have been harmful in operation.® Viewed 
from the modem standpoint, the British colonial policy 
(though more liberal than that of other European pow- 
ers at the time) was selfish and to some extent at least 
economically disadvantageous but with certain compensat- 
ing advantages. SchmoUer, speaking of mercantilism in 
general, maintains that it was a necessary step in the 
evolution of our present society, replacing as it did **a 
local and territorial economic policy by that of the national 
state. "^ 

The Development of England^s Commercial Policy. In 
outlining the more important phases of the development 
of England's colonial policy (so far as the continental 
colonies were concerned), we shall consider briefly the 
navigation acts and the enumerated commodities, the 
restrictions upon colonial manufactures, and the encour- 
agements to colonial industry. 

In the navigation act of Cromwell in 1651 we see the 
first real development of a commercial policy on the part 
of England. Prior to this act, the policy of the English 
sovereigns was influenced by motives of momentary im- 
portance,® largely political and moral in their nature. 

6 Smith, Wealth of Nations. ( Chap. VII, on Colonies. ) 
«Egerton, British Colonial Policy, 69, 70; cf. W. J. Ashley, Sur- 
veys Historic and Economic, 310, 311, 335; Hertz, The Old Colonial 
System, 37, 38 ; Beer, Commercial Policy of England, 7, 8. 

7 "In its innermost kernel it is nothing but state making . . . 
which creates out of the political community an economic community, 
and so gives it a heightened meaning." — The Mercantile System. 
(Econ. Classics, ed. by W. J. Ashley), pp. 60, 51. 

8 Beer, op. cit., 35. 



4 POLICY TOWARD COLONIES 

Subsequent to this act, the policy, under the influence of 
the mercantile system became chiefly economic, and as 
such developed more systematically and more rapidly 
than previously. Space will not permit a portrayal of 
the more salient features prior to this date: the period, 
however, was characterized by a relative freedom of 
trade. 

The act of 1651 provided, in essence, protection to Eng- 
lish shipping and dealt with the monopoly of navigation.® 
This act was also intended to restrict the trade of the 
Dutch, — England's most successful commercial rival. 
Its chief provisions were (a) goods of the growth or man- 
ufacture of Asia, Africa, or America were to be imported 
into England or any portion of her dominions only in 
English ships manned in large part by English seamen; 

(b) goods of the growth and manufacture of Europe were 
to be imported into England or any portion of her doD^in- 
ions, either in English ships or in the ships of the nation 
in which these goods were produced and manufactured; 

(c) goods of foreign growth or manufacture had to be 
brought direct from the country in which they were pro- 
duced, or from those ports whence these goods were usu- 
ally exported.^^ 

This act did not monopolize colonial trade; it permitted 
foreign nations to trade with the colonies practically as 
before, only compelling them to employ their own or 
English ships. 

The Virginia tobacco planters among others made com- 
plaints as to the effects of the provisions of this act.^^ 

The act of 1660 changed the scope of the earlier act 

» Efforts in this direction had been made from the time of Rich- 
ard II, in 1377. Cunningham, The Growth of English Industry 
and Commerce, I, 338. 

10 The text of this act is in Scobell, CoUection of Acts and Or- 
dinances of General Use, II, 176, 177. 

11 Ashley, op. cit., 312, 313. 



POLICY TOWARD COLONIES 5 

protecting shipping. Goods could be imported or ex- 
ported from the English plantations in ships built and 
owned by the people in England or in the English planta- 
tions. The master and three-fourths of the crew had to 
be English. Foreign goods were to be imported into 
England directly from the place of growth or production, 
or from the ports from which these goods were usually 
shipped. This act was strengthened three years later by 
a provision making foreign-built vessels alien, and requir- 
ing European goods to be first landed in England before 
being exported to the colonies.^^ A further act was passed 
in 1672 whereby goods brought from one colony to another 
were liable to pay the same customs duties which they 
would have paid if brought to England. 

Another important regulation was the one in the eight- 
eenth section of the act of 1660. It enumerated com- 
modities w^hich could be exported to England alone. These 
included sugar, tobacco, cotton-wool, indigo, ginger and 
fustic or other dyeing woods, — commodities which were 
the products of the southern and West India colonies. The 
only one of any consequence to the southern colonies at 
that time, however, was tobacco. Bond was to be given to 
land these commodities in England or Ireland.^^ Grain, 
salt provisions and fish were not enumerated, because their 
importation into English markets would have seriously 
interfered with similar commodities produced in Eng- 
land. She was glad to have them exported elsewhere. 
Hence England was influenced ^'not so much from any 
regard to the interests of America as from a jealousy of 

12 Except salt for the fisheries, wine from Madeira and the Azores, 
and provisions from Scotland and Ireland. 

13 Rabbeno attributes this act to the beginnings of manufacturing 
in the colonies, and the consequent fear of England for her own 
interests. Op. cit., 19. Other commodities were also required by 
the act of 1660 and subsequently, to pay high duties on importation 
into England, or were absolutely forbidden. 



6 POLICY TOWARD COLONIES 

this interference. ' ' ^* The list of enumerated commodities 
was added to from time to time, including naval stores 
(tar, pitch, turpentine, hemp, masts and yards) in 1706; 
rice in 1706, but subsequent to 1730 it could be exported 
to countries south of Cape Finisterre; copper ore, bar 
and pig iron, pot and pearl ashes, and beaver skins in 
1722; whale fins, hides and molasses in 1733; coffee, 
pimento and cocoanuts, etc., in 1764. 

The effect of these restrictions upon the commerce of the 
colonies has been exaggerated, however we may look upon 
the principles involved. The article which was most seri- 
ously affected was tobacco.^^ In this instance its production 
was prohibited in England, and high duties were imposed 
upon Spanish tobacco, thus securing to American tobacco 
a monopoly of the English market. Tobacco for con- 
tinental ports had to be shipped to England, which in- 
volved warehouse and higher freight charges — paid of 
course chiefly by the colonists. On rice, the restriction of 
1706 also worked hardship, since Carolina for the time 
practically lost the Portuguese market.^* 

One word further must be said at this place in regard 
to the restrictions placed upon commodities. The colo- 
nists had undertaken a profitable trade with the West 
Indies, and in this way had secured gold and silver to meet 
the unfavorable balances due England for manufactured 
articles. It was, however, urged by certain interests in 
England that the trade of the northern colonies with the 
French, and even with the Dutch and Spanish West In- 
dies, was harmful to the sugar industry in the British 
West Indies. Hence, after repeated complaint and peti- 

14 Smith, Wealth of Nations, II, 312. 

i»Bogart, Economic History of the U. S., 39; Beer, British Colo- 
nial Policy, chap. X. 

i« It seems that Ashley minimizes somewhat unduly the effects of 
this restriction. Cf. op. cit., 316, 317. 



POLICY TOWARD COLONIES 7 

tion, Parliament in 1733 passed the ''Molasses Act.'' 
This act ostensibly provided for revenue on rum, molasses 
and sugar from the foreign countries when imported into 
the colonies, but the duty on molasses was practically pro- 
hibitory, and its enforcement, particularly in the New 
England colonies, would have meant a serious interruption 
to commerce. Without a free market in the West Indies, 
these colonies could not dispose of their commodities with 
profit, and would thus be unable to secure the precious 
metals necessary to pay their debts to England. It is but 
little wonder, therefore, that the act was flagrantly 
evaded.^^ 

The restriction of colonial manufactures furnishes us 
another class of acts passed by Parliament. These were 
the acts relating to wool, hats, and the erection of steel 
furnaces and slitting mills. The export of wool or woolen 
goods from the colonies, or from one colony to another, was 
prohibited in 1699. This act did not interfere with the 
making of woolen articles within the family for domestic 
needs. A somewhat similar policy was pursued in 1732, 
when, upon the petition of the Company of Feltmakers, 
Parliament prohibited the exportation of hats from any 
colony, and further restricted the making of hats in the 
colonies to those who had served an apprenticeship. Iron- 
works for rolling or slitting iron, furnaces for making 
steel, and tilt-hammers for forges were prohibited in 1750, 
almost at the close of the colonial period, although the pro- 
duction of bar and pig iron was encouraged by bounties.^* ^<^ 

17 Beer, op. cit., 122. "The Molasses Act remained practicaUy a 
dead letter. Economically, it was a gross mistake, and was the out- 
come of the spirit of paternalism shown toward the English colonies 
in the West Indies.'' Cf. Ashley, op. cit., 329-331. 

18 Inquiries sent out by the Board of Trade and Plantations, and 
answered by the Governors of the several colonies, were used at times 
as the basis of Parliamentary action. As the result of one of these 
intjuiries, subsequently submitted to the House of Commons, that 



8 POLICY TOWAKD COLONIES 

The last act was doubtless the greatest restriction upon 
colonial manufacture, and here as elsewhere, there appear 
conflicting views of the effects of these acts.^^ 

Not aU of the British legislation, however, was of a 
restrictive character. The policy of encouragement was 
also practiced. The usual form was the bounty on colo- 
nial produce imported into England. Drawbacks and 
preferential duties may also be looked upon as encour- 
agements. We have already noted an illustration of the 
latter on tobacco shipped to England, Spanish tobacco 
paying higher duties than the colonial tobacco imported 
into England. Drawbacks were granted on colonial pro- 
duce reexported from England. On foreign goods reex- 
ported from England to the American colonies, the same 
drawbacks were allowed as when reexported to any foreign 
country.^^ This privilege, however, was curtailed in 1763, 
when foreign goods from Europe or the East Indies, ex- 
cept wines, white calicoes and muslins, were reexported 
to the American colonies. 

The change in England's attitude towards the colonies 
at the close of the French and Indian War, must be noted. 
With the creation of a large war debt, among other fac- 
tors, it was deemed essential by the Grenville ministry 
to create a revenue in the colonies toward the payment 
of imperial expenses — practically for military purposes. 

body declared in 1719 that "the establishment of manufactories in 
the colonies tends to render them more independent of Great Brit- 
ain," Jours, of the H. of Com., Vol. III. That same year a bill was 
introduced into the House of Commons, restricting the iron industry 
to the production of pig and bar iron, but the bill was dropped 
before it came to a vote. 

19 Cf. Ashley, op. cit., 320-^327; Bogart, op cit., 44, 45; Beer, Com- 
mercial Policy of England, chapter IV. 

20 English merchants even complained that the drawbacks per- 
mitted the colonists to secure German linens cheaper than they 
could be secured in England itself. Smith, Wealth of Nations, III, 
320-322. 



POLICY TOWARD COLONIES 9 

The ''Sugar Bill" of 1764 had this in view; in addition 
it attempted to correct the laxity of administration of the 
acts of trade. ' ' It was the first statute distinctly taxing the 
colonies, and marked a radically new departure in colonial 
policy." There was an increase in the revenue, but it 
was not of any importance from the fiscal point of view.^^ 
Its inadequacy was recognized and the famous Stamp Act 
was passed. The opposition to this act; the act of 1767 
(imposing duties on gla^s, paper, painter's colors, red and 
white lead, and tea) ; and the retention of the duty on tea 
in 1770 followed in rapid succession. Colonial opposition 
reached such a stage that non-importation agreements 
were entered into throughout the colonies; furthermore, 
colonial industries received an added impetus in conse- 
quence of England's determination to tax the colonists. 
With the commencement of war, Parliament prohibited 
all trade with the colonies, and declared their vessels law- 
ful prize. Thus the enforcement of the colonial system 
brought about the overthrow of England's commercial 
policy in the American colonies. 

Supervision of Colonial Legislation. The development 
of England's commercial policy made it essential to have 
some sort of supervision over the colonies, to ensure the 
proper protection of her interests. Before touching upon 
this question, let us note briefly the position of the colonies 
in relation to the empire. 

Three types of colonies were provided in America. The 
chartered colony, comprising the corporate colonies of 
New England and the proprietary provinces, secured cer- 
tain privileges from the English crown. The grant or 
charter establishing these colonies guaranteed to the inhab- 
itants a right to the powers and exemptions specified 
therein, as well as to others which were not specified but 

21 Beer, BritiBh Colonial Policy, 123 et seq., 193, 276-285. 



10 POLICY TOWARD COLONIES 

which were necessary to the enjoyment of those specified. 
Outside of these privileges the colonies were subject to 
the control of Parliament.^^ The royal province, which 
became the predominant type in the eighteenth century, 
was more directly under the control of the Crown than 
the chartered colony. The executive and in fact the in- 
ternal organization of these provinces could therefore be 
subjected to a greater degree of supervision, and in con- 
sequence developed a more uniform organization than 
was possible in the corporate or in the proprietary colony. 
In consequence of the privileges granted by the charter, 
the corporate colony assumed a degree of de facto self- 
government which did not accord well with a recognition 
of sovereign power in England. The crown could not 
lawfully remove or punish officials for inefficiency or dis- 
obedience. Yet these colonies were forced to recognize 
it about the time of the English revolution. The pro- 
prietary colonies did not develop such a degree of self- 
government; to secure it, the people frequently had bit- 
ter disputes with the proprietors. Owing to the difficulty 
of enforcing imperial policies in the corporate and the 
proprietary colonies, the royal province was emphasized 
by English officials as the proper type of colonial organ- 
ization.^^ 

Although the colonies received certain privileges where 
the charter was granted, the question arises as to whether 
parliamentary legislation extended to the American colo- 
nies. In theory. Parliament could have legislated for the 
colonies as fully as it did for England. In point of 

22 John Lind, Acts Relating to the Colonies, I, 81, 82, 183, 184; 
Pownall, Administration of the Colonies, London, 1774, II, 46-50, 95. 

23Egerton, British Colonial Policy, 112, 113, 117-119; Greene, Pro- 
vincial Governor, 91 et seq.; Greene, Provincial America, 184, 185; 
Osgood, American Colonies in the Seventeenth Century, I, xxvii et 
seq.; Pol. Sc. Quarterly, II, 443; Chalmers, Revolt of the Colonies, 
II, 5, 6, 42, 43. 



POLICY TOWARD COLONIES 11 

fact it did not do so with comparatively infrequent ex- 
ceptions, in which cases the acts usually included the 
colonies by title. Laws passed before the settlement of 
the colonies and adapted to their conditions were enforced, 
yet even here the colonies often adopted them. The acts 
of trade and navigation were perhaps the most important 
that were applied to the colonies.^* Because Parlia- 
ment did not impose laws for revenue upon the colonies 
until the period prior to the Revolution (although meas- 
ures to that effect had been proposed at various times) 
the colonists ''insensibly drifted into the idea that Parlia- 
ment could not legally tax them. ' ' ^^ The enforcement 
of this principle by Parliament was one of the causes of 
the Revolution. 

The colonies were thus permitted to legislate for their 
own internal needs. Provision to that end was made in 
the charter or the instructions to the Governor. A limita- 
tion was, however, placed upon colonial legislation: the 
acts must not be repugnant to the laws of England or 
inconsistent therewith, otherwise they would be declared 
null and void.^^ This limitation took various forms in- 
cluding the royal veto, instructions to the Governor not 
to assent to certain measures, suspension of acts until royal 
confirmation was secured, the inspection of the acts in 
England within a certain time limit provided in the 
charter or in the instructions to the Governor. To carry- 
out the policy of imperial control over colonial legislation, 
therefore, some form of administrative machinery was 

24 Osgood, American Colonies, III, 512, 513; Greene, Provincial 
Governor, 55, 69, 97; Andrews, Colonial Self- Government, 37, 258; 
Pol. Sc. Quarterly, II, 445, 455. 

25 Beer, British Colonial Policy, 36-51. Cf. Pol. Sci. Quarterly, 
II, 463-465; Egerton, British Colonial Policy, 196 et seq. 

26 Pa. Statutes at Large, appdx., 610, 611; N. Y. Col. Doc. II, 296; 
see also Greene, Provincial Governor, appendix B for list of instruc- 
tions to governors with references. 



12 POLICY TOWARD COLONIES 

essential. To the governor and other officers this duty- 
was immediately entrusted. The Board of Trade and 
Plantations, however, was the body which had a general 
supervision over the colonies.^"^ 

Prior to 1696, the business of the plantations was looked 
after by committees, standing or special, of the privy 
council. In that year a permanent board was constituted, 
but still under the privy council.^^ The Board of Trade 
could recommend the confirmation or rejection of colonial 
laws, and during the periods of its prominence these 
recommendations were usually accepted. It must be re- 
membered, however, that the Board was subordinate to 
the privy council, and that de facto it was practically a 
committee for information.^^ 

The exercise of the royal veto over colonial legislation 
in the royal provinces was recognized from the outset. 
The earlier charter colonies were not required to transmit 
their laws to England, but in 1681 the charter to Penn 
required all acts to be transmitted to England within 
five years of their enactment, and the council must then 
pass judgment upon them within six months. The charter 

2T To it was given the right to secure the data relating to the 
trade of England, and to make suggestions for improving particular 
trades. Other duties were also entrusted to them including the care 
of the records and papers belonging to the Plantation Office; the ex- 
amination of instructions to Governors; the presentation of names 
of persons for Governor and other officials in the colonies to the king 
in council; the examination of the acts passed in the colonies; the 
hearing of complaints, with the power to send for papers and per- 
sons. Cf . Kellogg, The American Colonial Charter, in Amer. Hist. 
Assn., 1903, I, 215. 

28 A convenient table of the various councils and their membership 
may be found in N. Y. Col. Doc. Ill, introduction. Early commis- 
sions to these councils, ibid, III, 30, 32, 572. See also Egerton, 
British Colonial Policy, appendix B. 

29 Chalmers, Opinions of Eminent Lawyers, I, pp. vi-xvii, xx; 
Kellogg, op. cit., Amer. Hist. Assn., 1903, I, 207-215; Greene, Pro- 
vinciaAl America, 47, 48. 



POLICY TOWARD COLONIES 13 

of Massachusetts (1691) provided that the acts had to be 
transmitted within three years, yet, like the corporate 
colonies, it resisted or denied the power of the council. 
Similar provisions were usually found in the other char- 
ters.^^ The colonial laws of a commercial nature, which 
were actually disallowed by the crown, fall under two 
heads ; viz. : those which were technically illegal — poorly 
drawn up or exceeding the legislative powers — and those 
which were deemed contrary to the English law or inter- 
ests. An instance of the former is found in an act of 
Pennsylvania providing for the improvement of the navi- 
gation of the Delaware Eiver. The act was sent to the 
crown's lawyer, who declared it unwarranted by the 
grants in the charter, and prejudicial to his Majesty's 
interests. The council nevertheless decided to recom- 
mend its confirmation — which was not infrequently done 
where it was believed that the act would confer a benefit 
upon the colony.^^ The tariff legislation of the colonies 
was the cause of numerous royal vetoes, and led to in- 
structions to Governors, not to pass such acts without a 
clause suspending their operation until approved by the 
Crown.^2 rpjjg Board of Trade, in 1766, stated that ''the 
general policy to which we . . . refer is that of not 

30 Poore, Charters and Constitutions, I, 952, II, 1512 ; Andrews, 
Colonial Self- Government, 37; Pa. Statutes at Large, VIII, 581, 582; 
Pownall, Administration of the Colonies, I, 77, 78. Anderson as- 
serts that in a report of the Board of Trade for 1733 it was found 
that "Rhode Island and Connecticut being charter governments, had 
little or no correspondence with our office, and we are very little 
informed of what is doing in their governments ; they not being under 
obligations to return authentic copies of their laws to the Crown for 
disallowance, or to give any account of their proceedings." History 
of Commerce, II, 622, 623. Cf. Chalmers, Revolt of the Colonies, II, 
114, 115, 118. 

31 Pa. Statutes at Large, VIII, 582-587. Cf. also ibid, 613, 619; 
III, 465; V, 507, 699, 700; VI, 610. 

32 Chalmers, Revolt of American Colonies, II, 75, 76 ; N. C. Colo- 
nial Records, III, 95, 96; N. Y. Col. Doc, V, 706, 707. 



14 POLICY TOWARD COLONIES 

allowing the legislatures in the American colonies to pass 
laws by which the trade and shipping of this kingdom 
may be affected, either by being subjected to duties or taxes 
or otherwise cramped or restrained. " ^^ It was in accord- 
ance with this point of view, for example, that the act of 
the Pennsylvania Assembly imposing a further duty of 
£10 upon slaves imported into the province was disal- 
lowed, as was also a similar act passed by the Virginia 
Assembly in 1769.^^ The Board of Trade, in 1706, rec- 
ommended the rejection of two acts of the Pennsylvania 
Assembly, the one preventing the sale of ill-tanned leather 
and making it into shoes because ^'it cannot be expected 
that encouragements should be given by law to the mak- 
ing any manufactures made in England in the planta- 
tions, it being against the advantage of England"; the 
other requiring masters of vessels to report at Newcastle 
on the ground that this act dealt with a power in 'refer- 
ence to trade which was vested by an act of Parliament 
in the English customs commissioners.^^ Another act of 
that colony, passed in 1715, and disallowed four years 
later, provided import duties upon liquors and hops. Its 
rejection was recommended on the ground that it **not 
only allows the importation of wines in general directly 
from the place of their growth, which is contrary to the 
act of trade, 15th Charles the Second, but lays a double 
duty on wines as may be imported from any other place, 
which can be only from Great Britain. ''^^ These illus- 
trations from one colony — by no means a complete list — 
covering different kinds of commercial legislation, give 
us some idea of the work of the Board of Trade in con- 

33 Pa. Statutes at Large, VI, 610. 

34Hening, Statutes of Virginia, VIII, 337; Pa., Statutes at Large, 
VIII, 619, 620. 

35 Pa. Statutes at Large, II, 466, 480, 481. 

3e Ibid, III, 465. Cf. also Chalmers, Revolt of the Colonies, I, 383. 



POLICY TOWARD COLONIES 15 

sidering colonial laws, and of the royal veto. On the 
whole, we must not condemn the work of the Board of 
Trade (and its predecessor, the committee of the privy 
council) for its attitude was really ''one of eminent fair- 
ness.'' It almost never acted arbitrarily, but gave the 
colonies a fair chance to state their cases.^^ 

Besides the supervision of the Board of Trade, there 
were the instructions to the Governor which forbade him 
to assent to acts prejudicial to the interests of England, 
or required him to suspend their operation until they had 
been approved by the Crown. It was difficult to secure the 
suitable enforcement of these instructions for the Governors 
and other officials were dependent upon the Assembly for 
their salaries, and in fact the Governors frequently dis- 
regarded their instructions.^® The instructions to the 
Governors required the legislatures to provide a permanent 
support, but these were not always lived up to by the 
legislatures.^^ Even the instruction requiring the Gov- 
ernor to suspend the operation of a law until it had 
secured royal approval was violated at times. Moreover, 
laws were not always transmitted to England for approval, 
or were sometimes transmitted after the purpose of the 
act had been in large part accomplished. This sort of 
passive resistance to English control could take place more 
readily in the corporate colonies. Many of the earlier 
tariff laws of Pennsylvania, for example, were transmitted 
to England for inspection after they had ceased to 
operate.'*® 

37 Andrews, Colonial Self-Government, 28, 29 ; Chalmers, Revolt 
of the American Colonies, passim. 

38 N. Y. Col. Docs., VI, 760; V, 282, 283; VII, 32, 40; Greene, 
Provincial Governor, 164-175; Chalmers, Revolt of the Colonies, II, 
312; Journal of the Council of N. Y., I, 428. 

39 Pownall, Administration of the Colonies, I, 80, 81; Egerton, 
British Colonial Policy, 148. 

40 Pa. Statutes at Large, II, 533; III, 441, 488-492; Chalmers, 
Revolt of the Colonies, I, 385; II, 158. 



16 POLICY TOWAED COLONIES 

England thus seems to have intended her colonies for 
her own benefit. Under the influence of the mercantile 
theory England attempted to secure the trade and navi- 
gation of the colonies to herself: she wished to make the 
empire self-sufficing, or if we look at the period under 
review as a historical evolution we may agree with Schmol- 
ler that an attempt was made at ** nation-making. ' ' In 
order to secure an efficient colonial system — one that would 
redound to the English producer's gain — administrative 
machinery was essential to attain the suitable enforce- 
ment of the acts of Parliament, secure information of the 
condition and progress of the colonies, and supervise the 
acts of the colonial assemblies to see that they were not 
contrary to the acts of Parliament or harmful to English 
interests. This was- in large measure attained by the 
committee of the privy council and the Board of Trade 
and Plantations. The administrative control was, however, 
weakened by an unwise division of authority and to some 
extent lack of attention to colonial matters.^^ Moreover, 
the colonies themselves (particularly the chartered colo- 
nies) opposed this extension of the power of the Crown 
over their activities, especially in legislation. They sought 
to refute it in principle, and incorporated it as part of 
their grievances in the Declaration of Independence. 

41 Pownall, Administration of the Colonies, I, 13 et seq. 



CHAPTER II 

IMPORT AND EXPORT DUTIES 

With the commercial policy of England as a back- 
ground we may consider that of the American colonies. 
In attempting an analysis of the policy of commercial 
legislation during the period under review, we at once 
meet difficulties — particularly with reference to tariff leg- 
islation. The thirteen colonies (later states) enacted leg- 
islation independently of one another — and even of the 
mother country as we have seen — thus making unity of 
action impossible. The acts providing tariff and tonnage 
duties (imposed principally to secure revenue) were 
enacted as a rule for short periods of time or for specific 
purposes, as for example the check placed upon the Gov- 
ernor by the Assembly, and thus it became difficult to 
establish a general policy. Moreover, the present needs 
of the colony were frequently so dominant that the 
legislation was often framed without a view to unity, or 
to any policy in the narrower sense. ^ Golden, writing in 
1751 to Governor Clinton on means to secure revenue for 
regulating the Indian trade, proposed a duty on liquor. 
He added that ^ * as this duty is proposed to be general over 
all the Colonies, it must be imposed by Act of Parlia- 
ment, because it would be a most vain imagination to 
expect that all the Colonies would severally agree to impose 
it. " ^ The lack of unity and harmony in commercial legis- 

1 Chalmers, Revolt of the Colonies, II, 119; Greene Provincial Gov- 
ernor, 166 et seq. 

2 N. Y. Col. Doc., VI, 745, 746. 

17 



18 IMPORT AND EXPORT DUTIES 

lation during the confederacy affords another illustration, 
at a later date, of the difficulty of a unified policy. Hence, 
in analyzing the policy of commercial legislation, we shall 
use the term in a broad sense.^ 

The numerous regulations of commerce render a classi- 
fication desirable. It has been deemed expedient to con- 
sider the commercial legislation for the colonial period 
under the following heads: import and export duties; 
bounties, inspection laws and embargoes; tonnage duties; 
port regulations; and then to trace the legislation through 
the period of the confederacy to the time when the federal 
government took over the most important phases of com- 
mercial regulation. 

IMPORT DUTIES. 

Scope of the Import Duties. All of the colonies im- 
posed import duties upon commodities for longer or 
shorter periods of time.^ The most continuous systems 
were developed in Massachusetts, New York and South 
Carolina. Ad valorem duties predominated at the begin- 
ning of the colonial era, but specific duties gradually sup- 
planted them, particularly in the three colonies just men- 
tioned and in Pennsylvania. The chief purpose of the 
import duty was to provide a source of revenue, yet the 
rates were usually low in order not to interfere with 
trade and navigation. Moreover, drawbacks were fre- 
quently granted, in whole or in part, upon articles which 

3 Cf. Amer. Hist. Assn., Ill, 492. 

* There is no direct evidence of the imposition of such duties in 
the laws of Delaware subsequent to 1700. There can be little doubt, 
however, that the earlier acts of Pennsylvania at least were applied 
to Delaware. Pa. Archives, 2nd series, XVI, 546-551, 748; Pa. Col. 
Kee., Ill, 63; N. Y. Col. Docs., V, 603; Pa. Statutes at Large, II, 
105; III, 112, 151, 268, 416. For some of the other colonies difficulty 
was experienced in securing the data for certain years; while in 
several other instances the acts were included in the records or com- 
pilation of laws merely by title. 



IMPORT AND EXPORT DUTIES 19 

had been previously imported and entered at the custom 
house. 

Most of the colonies, if not all, imposed duties upon 
wines and spirituous liquors. The duties were compara- 
tively high — in part because this commodity was a luxury 
for home consumption.^ The earlier liquor acts often 
specified the duties on wines from the various places of 
growth and production, in addition to the rates on rum 
and other spirituous liquors. A typical illustration of 
the rates upon wines and liquors may be found in the act 
of Massachusetts for 1692.^ Fayal wine was to pay 20s. 
per pipe ; Passada wine 1£ 15s. ; Madeira wine 1£ 10s. ; 
Canary, Malaga and Sherry wines, 40s. ; port wine 1£ 5s.^ 
Several of the colonies, including Connecticut, Maryland, 
New Jersey and Virginia, imposed the duty upon wines 
without regard to the places of origin — though forced to 
make a distinction in favor of those imported directly from 
England. Even higher duties were imposed upon rum 
and ^' other spirituous liquors" than upon wine.^ This 

5 Malt Liquors and cider were only infrequently taxed in the ear- 
liest acts. 

6 Acts and Resolves, I, 30. 

7 These duties, although higher than the duties on wines in earlier 
acts of Massachusetts, were about the same as the rates imposed in 
other colonies at the beginning of the eighteenth century. The ten- 
dency to enumerate the wines in fewer groups is noticeable through- 
out the colonies. The first few acts of Massachusetts had no less 
than nine groups, but ultimately these were reduced to one. (e. g., 
Acts and Resolves, IV, 850.) This tendency is even more prominent 
in the acts imposing further duties (usually for revenue) upon wine. 
The administrative advantages of such a simplification must have 
been apparent, for it was comparatively easy under the inefficient 
administrative machinery, to misrepresent the place from which the 
wine had been imported. South Carolina, for example, experienced 
this difficulty and made it a misdemeanor to represent wine from the 
Western Islands as that of the Madeira Islands. (Cooper, Statutes, 
II, 609.) 

8 Its importation into Georgia was at first prohibited, as was also 
the introduction of slavery. Col. Ree. of Ga., IV, 62, 121, 122; Jones, 
History of Ga., I, 110, 189, 427. 



20 IMPORT AND EXPORT DUTIES 

was particularly true of the New England colonies, though 
drawbacks were allowed when duly reexported. Several 
of these colonies were engaged in an extensive trade with 
the West Indies, and found a good return cargo in the 
molasses produced as a by-product from the manufacture 
of sugar. The distillation of rum from molasses became, 
therefore, an extensive industry, particularly in Rhode 
Island.® The motive of the high duties on rum in these 
colonies, therefore, was not solely, nor perhaps chiefly, 
for revenue, but the nature of the trade made it desirable 
to make some of the rum at least within these colonies 
and thus the element of protection appears. A further 
factor which must be noted in connection with the duties 
on rum is the complaint made against the excessive local 
consumption of rum by the colonists. Governor Andros 
was instructed to increase the duty upon imported rum for 
this reason ; ^® and Connecticut, in 1720, even imposed a 
duty of £15 upon each hogshead of rum imported, unless 
exported again, because it was being used too much for 
local consumption.^^ The revenue feature was probably 
emphasized more than any other factor in the southern 
colonies, which frequently imposed duties upon spirituous 
liquors, particularly upon rum. 

The duties upon the other commodities specifically enu- 
merated in the various acts were imposed chiefly as a source 
of revenue, and in general the duties were low. Many 
of the higher duties provided in the enactments during 
the middle of the eighteenth century are more apparent 
than real, owing to the depreciation of the currency. The 
acts of Massachusetts and of South Carolina are note- 
worthy on account of the large list of goods upon which 

» Bishop, History of Manufactures, I, 250, 270 note ; N. Y. Col. 
Doc, VI, 127. 

10 N. Y. Col. Doe., Ill, 268. 

11 Public Rec. of Conn., VIII, 224. 



IMPORT AND EXPORT DUTIES 21 

specific duties were imposed. In South Carolina, the num- 
ber of such articles exceeded fifty in 1721, although by 
1740 the number had been reduced to thirty.^^ Generally 
speaking, the list of goods subject to specific duties was 
increased or diminished quite frequently. Those most 
commonly selected were tobacco, sugar, cocoa, molasses, 
dye-woods, and later on, tea. These articles, with the 
addition of the impost upon rum and wine, form a list 
quite similar to the tariff which Congress in 1783 asked 
permission to impose to provide for the debt.^^ 

These tariff acts almost invariably imposed ad valorem 
duty upon all other goods (with certain exceptions, e. g., 
salt, munitions of war, iron) when specific duties were 
imposed. The ad valorem duty seldom exceeded 5% upon 
the ''prime" cost of the articles imported, and in one 
instance was as low as 4s. 6d. for every hundred pounds' 
worth of goods.^* 

Import Duties on Direct Trade. Exemption of certain 
articles of necessity was provided, but a more frequent 
practice was the imposition of lower duties upon goods 
imported directly into a port of the legislating colony from 
the place of growth or produce. This method was scarcely 
ever used by the southern colonies.^^ Moreover, several 
of the colonies provided lower duties upon goods imported 

12 Hill, Early Stages of Tariff Policy, Amer. Econ. Assn., 1893, p. 
483. 

13 Journals of Congress, VIII, 139 ; Douglas, Financial History of 
Mass., 87. 

14 Acts of the General Assembly of Ga., 1755-1774, p. 242; Rec. of 
R. I., Ill, 422; Cooper, Statutes of S. C., II, 649. Massachusetts, 
at one time, even imposed one ad valorem rate upon English goods, 
and another rate upon certain other goods. Acts and Resolves, I, 
31. The earlier laws of New York provided a 10% duty. 

15 An act of the South Carolina assembly placed a higher duty 
upon beer and cider not coming directly from the American colonies 
in 1716. It was subsequently repealed by the Proprietors, due to 
the boundary dispute. Cooper, Statutes, II, 649. Of. also Collection 
of I^ws of Md. (1727), T^, m. 



22 IMPORT AND EXPORT DUTIES 

in ships owned or built by that colony. To a considerable 
extent, these attempts reflected more or less closely the 
influences of the mercantile system though, as we shall 
see, England took care to disallow and to prevent the 
enactment of duties on English goods and ships be- 
cause they interfered with her trade and navigation inter- 
ests.^® As a matter of fact, little was accomplished along 
any of these lines by the colonial legislatures prior to 
1700. 

The legislation providing lower duties on direct trade 
(outside of that with England or with reference to colo- 
nial shipping) was intended to increase that direct trade. 
Cornbury, of New York, had urged the Assembly to pro- 
vide such duties Jn 1705, though New York had had such 
provisions as early as 1674.^"^ An act of the same province 
in 1715 had imposed a double duty upon wine, rum and 
cocoa not imported directly, from place of growth or 
produce; and upon European goods the duty was twelve 
ounces of plate for every £100 value ^' prime cost" when 
imported from Boston, and eighteen and three-fourths 
ounces when imported from the other colonies. The rep- 
resentation of the Assembly to the Governor in regard 
to this act asserted that it '^encourages a direct Importa- 
tion from Britain, by which we are supplied with good 

16 Cf. also Chapter I, sec. 3. 

17 New York appears to have been the first to adopt the method 
of imposing lower duties on direct trade. The act of 1684 imposed 
the rather high duty of 10% ad valorem on European goods not 
coming from England, and a similar duty on goods the produce of 
Jamaica, Barbadoes or any other of the Caribbean Islands. The act 
was to be in force for eleven years, and did not apply to the trade 
with Newfoundland, and the Western and Madeira Islands. The 
10% duty was lowered to 6% in 1699, at which time a 10% duty 
was imposed upon woolen manufactures from the neighboring colonies 
and a three- fold duty on wine and a four-fold duty on rum, not im- 
ported directly from the place of growth. — Col. Laws of N. Y., I, 165, 
403. Cf. also Journal of the Council of N. Y., I, 29; Osgood, Amer- 
ican Colonies, II, 359. 



IMPORT AND EXPORT DUTIES 23 

Commodities, instead of bad, from the Plantations; and 
are humbly of Opinion, it is of Advantage to the British 
Exportation, and a small Means of encreasing their 
Navigation, as well as a Benefit to ourselves, we being 
usually supplied from the Plantations, especially the West 
India Islands . . . " ^* Massachusetts provided a 
similar law in 1715, emphasizing however the revenue fea- 
ture. By that act, continued with subsequent additions 
and qualifications for more than fifty years, double duties 
were imposed on wine, rum, sugar, molasses, tobacco and 
logwood not imported directly from the place of growth 
or produce.^^ 

A more important phase of lower duties upon articles 
imported directly from the place of growth or produce is 
to be found in the laws favoring the shipping of the legis- 
lating colony. Five colonies, at least, attempted to encour- 
age the shipping industry or their direct trade by this 

18 Journal of the Council of N. Y., I, 435. European goods from 
England were not subject to this duty. — Ibid, 436; Col. Laws of 
N. Y., I, 847. Cf. also the act of 1714, ibid, I, 812. 

19 Acts and Resolves, II, 11, 48, 76, etc.; Ill, 81, 184, 271, etc.; 
IV, 79, 182, 298, etc. The later acts exempted goods from Great 
Britain, but goods imported (with exceptions) in any colonial or 
British West Indian vessel not the growth or produce of that colony, 
were liable to these double duties. 

Among the more important acts of this character in other colonies 
may be mentioned the higher duties on liquors provided in 1743 by 
New Jersey. Rum paid Is. per gallon when not imported directly; 
wine from any other of the American colonies, not the growth of that 
colony, £4 per pipe. — Allinson, Acts of the Assembly, 125. Pennsyl- 
vania, in 1700, and subsequently, had provided much higher duties on 
wine and rum not imported directly from the place of growth or pro- 
duce, although this was a comparatively unimportant feature in some 
of these acts. — Pa. Statutes at Large, II, 105; III, 151, 268. The act 
of 1715 imposed double duties upon wine and rum not imported di- 
rectly from the place of growth or produce, but it was disallowed by 
the Crown because the act permitted the importation of wines con- 
trary to the act of 15 Charles II, and also laid a double duty "on 
such wines as may be imported from any other place, which can be 
only from Great Britain."— Ibid, III, 112, 465. 



24 IMPORT AND EXPORT DUTIES 

means. Revenue was, of course, the basis of all these 
instances, although its importance varied widely. Passed 
during the latter part of the seventeenth and the early 
part of the eighteenth centuries, these acts provided lower 
duties chiefly upon wines and rum. Pennsylvania had 
provided in 1723 for the free importation of molasses in 
ships built in the province ; ^^ Connecticut wished to en- 
courage trade with the neighboring colonies of New Eng- 
land, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania in 1747, 
by providing lower duties on goods imported from thence 
by her own inhabitants ; ^^ and South Carolina had com- 
paratively elaborate provisions to encourage ship building 
and trade. ^^ During the proprietary period two acts were 
passed, the act of 1703 providing that vessels built and 
owned in the colony should pay half of the regular import 
and export duties, and that those built elsewhere, but owned 
in the province should pay two- thirds of these duties. The 
act of 1717 exempted from all duties goods imported in 
vessels built and owned in the colony; furthermore, on 
goods imported in vessels built, but not owned in the col- 
ony, the duties were one-half; and upon goods in vessels 
owned, though not built in the colony, three-fourths. 
The proprietors of the colony repealed the act in 1719, 
because it discriminated against British shipping, but this 
action was not taken until the Board of Trade had de- 
clared the act contrary to English interests. An attempt 
was made that same year to meet the objection, by pro- 
viding freedom from duties on vessels built and owned in 

20 Pa. Statutes at Large, III, 363. 

21 The duties on all goods imported amount to 5% of their value 
when imported by her own inhabitants, and 7l^% when imported 
by non-residents. — Public Rec. of Conn., IX, 283. It is worthy of 
note that a premium of 5% was offered at the same time on goods 
imported by her inhabitants directly from England and Ireland, — 
a provision which gave some results. — Ibid, 285, 393. 

22 Cf. also Pa. Statutes at Large, II, 2K5. 



IMPORT AND EXPORT DUTIES 25 

the province, and half duties on vessels built, but not 
owned, or owned but not built in the colony. To this 
the proprietors also refused assent. Nevertheless, it was 
continued in force until the act of 1721, when an essen- 
tially similar provision was enacted — ^vessels owned and 
built in the province paying half duties, the other two 
classes three-fourths.^^ Though encouragement to home 
shipping was an important feature of these acts, the con- 
trolling factor was the need for revenue, the tariff acts of 
this province producing a large source of revenue.^* 

The acts of the colonies imposing lower duties on rum 
and wine to encourage shipbuilding, and direct trade are 
found chiefly in the second decade of the eighteenth cen- 
tury,^^ which would seem to indicate that the colo- 
nies having these duties — Connecticut, Pennsylvania, 
Maryland, Virginia and South Carolina — were influenced 
to some extent by their neighbors.^^ 

23 Cooper, statutes of S. C, II, 200; III, 32, 67; Carroll, Collec- 
tions of S. C, II, 150, 151, 154, 168. 

24 Smith, South Carolina, 287, 288; Carroll, Collections of S. C, 
II, 222, 223, 228 et seq. 

25 Virginia in 1684 provided a duty of 3d. per gallon on liquors, 
but exempted importations in vessels belonging to the inhabitants. 
When it was proposed, in 1691, to secure a larger part of the rev- 
enue from indirect taxation, the duty on liquors was increased to 
4d. per gallon (except from England), 2d. per gallon imported in 
vessels owned by the inhabitants, and free from any duty in vessels 
built in the colony. It was re-enacted four years later. The amend- 
ment in the act of 1730 provided for the payment of half of the 
duties on liquors imported in vessels owned by the inhabitants of 
the colony. The chief emphasis in practically all of Virginia's 
acts imposing duties on liquors was for revenue. The earlier acts 
produced about £600 per annum on the average, and probably as much 
during the eighteenth century prior to the Revolution. — ^Hening, Stat- 
utes, III, 23, 88, 129; Ripley, Financial History of Virginia, 69-72. 

26 The most important of these acts were imposed by Connecticut 
and Pennsylvania. In 1717 high duties were imposed by the for- 
mer upon wine and rum — 30s. per pipe of wine and 50s. per hogs- 
head of rum. The duties, however, were fixed at 15s. and 20s. re- 
spectively if they were imported directly from their place of growth 



26 IMPORT AND EXPORT DUTIES 

English Goods and Imposts Thereon. Incidentally we 
have touched upon the colonial legislation affecting Eng- 
lish ships and goods imported from England. By the 
British acts of trade and navigation goods imported from 
England were regarded as part of the direct trade of the 
colonies, and exempt from any colonial duties, or at least 
from any higher duties than those imposed on goods im-. 
ported from other places of growth or produce. The same 

or produce, in vessels "part owned by one or more inhabitants" of 
the colony. Four years later, the duties on rum were made com- 
paratively less favorable for inhabitants importing this commodity in 
their own vessels directly from the West Indies. The duties im- 
posed by this act were 4d. and 3d. per gallon of rum. — Pliblic Ree. 
of Conn., VII, 36, 282. — An act of 1735, repealed the same year, in- 
creased the rates to 16d. and 8d. per gallon of rum. The lower 
rate was paid on the importation of rum directly from the West 
Indies in a vessel "the major part whereof" was owned by inhabi- 
tants of the colony. — Ibid, VIII, 7. In Pennsylvania direct impor- 
tation of wine in vessels owned principally by inhabitants of the 
colony or of Delaware was subject to a duty of 20s. per pipe, and 
to £3 when not so owned. Moreover, the duty was £6 when im- 
ported indirectly. On rum the duty was Id. per gallon when im- 
ported in vessels owned principally in the colony, otherwise 6d. The 
act of 1706, placed the duty on wine not imported directly (except 
from England) at £4 per pipe, and on direct importations in ves- 
sels owned by the inhabitants of Pennsylvania, Delaware and West 
Jersey at 20s.; on rum and other spirits not directly from the West 
Indies in vessels owned as in the case of the importation of wine, 
the duty was 9d. per gallon. Brandy from England was exempted 
from this duty. This act expired by limitation, nor was it disal- 
lowed by the Crown. It was replaced by an act passed in 1711, 
which provided that wine not imported directly from the place of 
growth or produce, should pay 40s. per pipe, and rum 4d. per gallon; 
when imported directly from the place of growth or produce, but not 
in the vessels of the inhabitants of Pennsylvania, Delaware or West 
Jersey, half rates were provided, and entire exemption granted when 
imported in these vessels. This act was disallowed by the Crown, 
February 20, 1714. The next act (1718), apparently, never sub- 
mitted to the consideration of the Crown, and continued in 1721, im- 
posed a duty of 20s. per pipe of Madeira and £3 for every pipe of 
Fayal wine imported directly in vessels owned by the inhabitants of 
the province, 40s. and £3 respectively if imported directly by others, 
and £5 if not imported directly from place of growth or produce. 



IMPORT AND EXPORT DUTIES 27 

view was held by English legislative and administrative 
bodies with regard to English ships. ^"^ As a matter of 
fact, numerous laws violating these principles were passed 
by the colonies. The English merchants protested from 
time to time and even proposed methods for remedying 
this evil in the corporate colonies which were the colonies 
in which most of the violations took place. Stephen 
Goden, a British merchant, asked the Board of Trade in 
1716 to revoke the charters of those colonies whose assem- 
blies passed laws repugnant to the laws of England in 
violation of their charters. He asked, ^*What can be more 
repugnant to (the constitution and advantage of Britain) 
than to burden, by unequal taxes, the manufactures and 
shipping of this kingdom, whose traders they call stran- 
gers in respect of their own? Thus, in Carolina, and in 
Pennsylvania, wines of Madeira pay in the first double, 
and in the last much more than if they belonged to the 
livers in both; and the like impositions are laid upon 
vessels that are not built in these places, to encourage 
their own; thus British traders are treated as aliens in 
their own colonies; a duty is likewise laid upon the im- 
portation of English manufactures, to promote their own." 

On rum and other spirits imported directly from place of produce by 
non-inhabitants, the rates were 2d. per gallon, and 4d. when not im- 
ported directly by any one. A new revenue measure in 1722 con- 
tinued the duties on wine unchanged, but increased those on rum. 
No mention was made of importation in vessels owned by the inhabi- 
tants of the province. Molasses was by act of 1723 admitted duty 
free when imported in ships built in the province, but the expecta- 
tion of promoting commerce was not realized and it was repealed the 
same year. Neither of these two acts seems to have been submitted 
to the Crown.— Pa. Statutes at Large, II, 105, 284, 382, 543, 544, 
551, 552; III, 150, 238, 268, 363, 416. Maryland, in 1724, reenacted 
I the duties on wines and distilled liquors imported into the province 
I and exempted the vessels owned by residents from these duties. — 
Bacon, Laws of Md., ch. 10. 

27 Edward Randolph (publications of the Prince Society), III, 97- 
99; Chalmers, Revolt of the Colonies, I, 388; N. Y. Col. Doc, VI, 34. 



28 IMPORT AND EXPORT DUTIES 

The Board of Trade, upon considering the matter, secured 
a royal order prohibiting governors from assenting to 
bills affecting English trade and shipping, and suspend- 
ing their operation until approved by the Crown.^^ 

That these violations were not necessarily enacted in 
opposition to the interests of the English merchant, as 
implied by Chalmers,^^ but were rather expedients to se- 
cure revenue with the least burden to the merchants of 
the legislating colony, seems evident. In 1695 Governor 
Usher, of New Hampshire, was requested by the Assem- 
bly, to devise a method to raise revenue for the support of 
the government. In addition to export duties on lumber 
and import duties on liquors, he proposed a duty on 
English goods similar to that imposed by Massachusetts.^^ 
The acts of the latter colony provided for a duty of 10s. 
per £100 value of English goods, and upon other goods 
not otherwise provided for in this act, a duty of Id. per 
20s. value— a higher rate. Subsequent acts doubled the 
duty on English goods, but after the receipt of the addi- 
tional instruction by the Governor in 1718, all reference 
to English goods and English vessels was omitted from 
the annual tariff laws passed by that colony. When a new 
revenue bill came up in the Assembly, after this instruc- 
tion to the Governor had been made known, the objection- 
able provisions were retained. An acrimonious discussion 
thereupon took place between the Assembly and the Coun- 
cil, in which the former was willing merely to substitute 
the word European for English. The mediation of the 
Governor, however, had a good effect, and a new bill, elim- 
inating the controverted clause, was passed. The Assem- 

28 Chalmers, Revolt of the Colonies, II, 6, 7, 118-120; Journal of 
the Council of N. Y., I, 428, 429; Edward Randolph (publication of 
the Prince Society), IV, 272, 273. 

29 Chalmers, Revolt of the Colonies (see previous note), 32-34. 

30 N. H. Provincial Papers, II, 172, 173; III, 34-36; q. v. also 
Batchellor, Laws of N. H., I, 109. 



IMPORT AND EXPORT DUTIES 29 

bly, nevertheless, passed a resolution, censuring the 
council. The latter body replied, asserting in part that 
it ''apprehended the duty of one per cent on English 
goods affected the trade of Great Britain, and so came 
within the meaning of His Majesty's late additional in- 
struction." ^^ Probably the most notable instance that oc- 
curred in any of the colonies along this line was the 
imposition of a series of duties by the Assembly of New 
York. In 1718, Governor Hunter in a letter to the Board 
of Trade, urged the necessity of securing revenue by a 
two per cent duty on European goods, which would not 
hurt English trade for it would ''in reality (be) paid by 
the inhabitants & purchasers themselves. " ^^ As a matter 
of fact, similar acts, imposing even higher duties, had 
been regularly passed by the Assembly and were not dis- 
allowed by the Crown. ^^ An act prohibiting a two per 
cent duty was passed in 1720, with a clause suspending 
its operation until it had been approved by the Crown.^^ 
The bill did not receive royal approval, for objections 
^ had been urged against it in a petition by English mer- 
chants. The Privy Council further urged the prepara- 
tion of instructions to all of the colonial Governors in 
America to enjoin them from assenting upon any pre- 
tense whatsoever to any act imposing duties on European 
goods shipped in English vessels.^^ This colony, as well 

31 Acts and Resolves of Mass., II, 31, 200, 270, etc.; Ill, 76, 108, 
138; Hutchinson, History of Mass., II, 204-208. The act of 1716 
imposing a duty on English ships trading to the colony was disal- 
lowed; and for assenting to the act of 1718, of a similar tenor (be- 
fore he had received his additional instruction), the Governor was 
reprimanded. — Chalmers, Revolt of the Colonies, II, 13, 14; Hutchin- 
son, History of Mass., II, 209; Journal of the Council of N. Y., I, 
430, 433. 

32 N. Y. Col. Doc, V, 520. 

33 N. Y. Col. Doc, III, 317; V, 512, 643; Chalmers, Revolt of the 
I Colonies, II, 49; Osgood, American Colonies, II, 359, 360. 
' 34 Col. Laws of N. Y., II, 32. 

85 N. Y. Col. Doc, V, 683, 706, 707; Joiurnals of the Council of 



30 IMPORT AND EXPORT DUTIES 

as others, still imposed duties at various times, (especially 
on negro slaves) which were considered to be contrary to 
English interests.^^ 

These practices were by no means restricted to the in- 
stances already mentioned; they also extended beyond the 
early decades of the eighteenth century, and covered ships- 
and slaves as well as goods. In an investigation made by 
the Board of Trade in 1731 it was discovered that the 
colonies imposed lower duties ^^on their own effects'' than 
upon those of residents of England.^^ In 1757 Connecti- 
cut imposed a duty of 6d. per pound of tea and an ad 
valorem duty of five per cent upon other goods imported 
by non-residents of the colony. There is no evidence that 
the act was intended to exempt English goods, but a sim- 
ilar law passed eleven years later (imposing the five per 
cent ad valorem duty) met with opposition in England, — 
both by merchants and by the government, — and it was 
accordingly repealed. The agent representing Connecticut 
in London prevailed upon Lord Hilsborough not to lay 
the complaint against this act before the King in council, 
with the understanding that the Assembly would correct 
the bill so as not to affect the importation of English 
goods by English subjects.^^ 

N. Y., I, 516; cf. statement in Chalmers, Revolt of the Colonies, II, 
49. Governor Burnet, in 1722, attributed the delay to the confirma- 
tion of this act, which he believed would never be approved, to the 
circumstance that "When the Legislature at home have passed a 
Law to give a premium upon the Exportation of the British Man- 
ufactures It is scarce to be Expected that the Crown will consent to 
a duty on those very Manufactures when Imported into the Plan- 
tations."— Journal of the Council of N. Y., I, 479. 

36 Cf. N. Y. Col. Doc, VI, 33, 34. An act passed in 1726 im- 
posed a 5% duty on European and East India goods imported by 
way of the British West Indies.— Col. Laws of N. Y., II, 254; N. 
Y. Col. Doc, VI, 33-34. 

37 Chalmers, Revolt of the Colonies, II, 118; Kimball, Corres. of 
Col. Gov. of R. I., I, 72, 73. 

38 Public Rec of Conn., XI, 10; XIII, 72, 299; Mass. Hist. CoH., 



IMPORT AND EXPORT DUTIES 31 

The action of the Board of Trade and the instructions 
to the Governors practically broke up the attempts to make 
European goods and ships pay part of the expenses of 
the government through imposts, because such acts were 
considered detrimental to English interests, if not contrary 
to the parliamentary acts of trade and navigation. This 
question is further exemplified in the attitude towards 
the colonial laws imposing duties on negro slaves.^® 

Import Duties on Negro Slaves.^^ The institution of 
slavery was of economic significance to northern and 
southern colonies, and the importation of slaves was 
regulated in practically all of the colonies.^^ Slaves were 
considered as merchandise under the navigation acts,*^ and 
duties were imposed upon them as a source of revenue, 
though the motive of checking undue importation was also 
strong. The motives for the acts of the several colonies 
were further subject to restraints by the home govern- 

fifth series, IX, 387, 392, 419, 428. Cf. Public Ree. of Conn., VII, 
55, 56. The reply of the agent is worth quoting in part. "I have 
very cautiously avoided giving any assurances that any alteration 
at all would be made in it (the act of 1768), and only contended 
that justice and propriety required that opportunity should be 
given for it, if the General Assembly of the Colony should upon 
reconsideration think proper to do it; to whom also it must be re- 
ferred, and who I had no doubt would do what was wise and fit 
with regard to it." — Mass. Hist. Coll., fifth series, IX, 428, 429. 

39Egerton, British Col. Policy, 140; N. Y. Col. Doc., VI, 33, 34; 
Carroll, Historical Coll. of S. C, II, 222. Franklin, writing in 
1754, asserted that "we are not suffered to regulate our trade and 
restrain the importation and consumption of British superfluities, 
as Britain can the consumption of foreign superfluities." — Works 
(Bigelow ed.), II, 382. 

40 An excellent monograph, including this topic, is The Suppres- 
sion of the African Slave-Trade to the United States of America, 
1638-1870, by W. E. B. DuBois. See especially pp. 7-38, and ap- 
pendix A. containing an outline of colonial and state legislation 
(1641-1787) on the importation of negro slaves. 

41 New Hampshire was probably the only exception. — Cf. N. H. 
Province Papers, IV, 617. 

42 McCrady, History of South Carolina, I, 441. 



3? IMPORT AND EXPORT DUTIES 

ment. Governors not infrequently had a clause in their 
instructions emphasizing the due encouragement of the 
slave trade, especially in the interests of the Royal Africa 
Company.*^ Moreover, additional instructions were at 
times sent to Governors requiring them to suspend the 
operation of acts affecting this trade until confirmed by 
the Crown. The additional instruction was usually the 
outcome of a duty on negroes imported from Africa, which 
led to^ complaints and petitions to the Board of Trade by 
English merchants.^* The Board recommended the re- 
jection of colonial acts of this nature when there was 
evidence that the importer (often an English merchant) 
had to pay the duty imposed, or when lower duties were 
paid by the merchants of the legislating colony.^^ 

There is by no means any general unity in the colonial 
legislation on the imposition of duties on slaves. Until 
about the time when England began to enforce the colo- 
nial system the several laws varied from encouragement 
to prohibition. The latter tendency became stronger sub- 
sequent to that period. The New England colonies found 
comparatively slight use for slaves on account of the pov- 
erty of their soil. Their views were also somewhat in- 
fluenced by moral standards. The share of the New Eng- 
lander, especially of the merchants of Rhode Island, in the 
slave-carrying trade, however, shows that the economic 
factors were after all predominant. Likewise, in the middle 

43 N. Y. Col. Doc, III, 374; N. J. Archives, first series, IX, 52; 
Laws of N. H., 164, 628. 

44 N. Y. Col. Doc, VI, 33, 34, 791; Kimball, Corres. of Gov. of 
R. I., I, 64, 73. 

45 N. J. Archives, first series, IX, 447; N. Y. Col. Doc, VI, 34. 
In a circular letter of October 14, 1729, the Governors of the colo- 
nies were instructed to use their influence to procure revenue from 
other sources than upon the importation of negroes. — Ripley, Fi- 
nancial history of Vir., 76. The Asiento agreement between Eng- 
land and Spain also illustrates the importance of the African slave 
trade to English merchants. 



IMPORT AND EXPORT DUTIES 33 

colonies, there was small chance for the growth of the insti- 
tution of slavery, because such a system, economically 
considered, did not pay. It is true that in Pennsylvania, 
the moral aspect was quite pronounced; it was probably 
less potent than the economic causes. By 1778 the 
importation of slaves had practically ceased in the north- 
ern states and in Maryland. In the southern colonies 
alone, where there was more legislation regulating the 
importation of slaves, were the economic factors (soil, 
climate, agricultural conditions and plantations) favorable 
to the institution of slavery. Moral forces, as in the 
attempt on the part of the trustees of Georgia to prohibit 
the introduction of slavery into that colony, and political 
forces, as expressed in laws checking the importation of 
slaves in such numbers as to menace the tranquillity and 
safety of the inhabitants, were also of some importance, 
nevertheless they were subordinate to the economic forces.*^ 
The duties actually imposed varied widely, going to a 
maximum of £100 on slaves imported into South Carolina 
from Africa, and £150 from the colonies — duties which 
were practically prohibitive.^^ In general, however, the 
rates did not often exceed £10 per slave imported, with 
drawbacks when duly exported.*^ The actual rates were 
the result of motives of expediency — sometimes political 
or moral, but more often economic. The fiscal needs in 
most of the colonies found in the slave trade a convenient 

46DuBois, Suppression of Slave-Trade, 15, 25, 37, 51; Col. Rec. 
of Ga., I, 50-54, 56-62; Journal of the Council of N. Y., I, 434, 631; 
Pa. Archives, fourth series. III, 343 ; Carroll, Historical Coll. of S. C, 
II, 218, 219, 224, 480. 

47 Cooper, Statutes, III, 556; Carroll, Historical Coll. of S. C, 
II, 224. 

48 Several colonies, at various times, prohibited the importation 
of negro slaves. South Carolina passed several acts imposing du- 
ties higher than £10, especially on slaves not imported directly from 
Africa.— Cooper, Statutes, of S. C, II, 649; III, 56, 193; IV, 187; 
VII, 368. 



34 IMPORT AND EXPORT DUTIES 

and in some instances an important source of revenue.*^ 
We have seen already that acts imposing this duty upon 
the importer were disallowed by the Crown, because the 
incidence of the tax was believed to fall upon him and 
was therefore detrimental to English merchants engaged 
in this trade. Hence colonial acts thereafter frequently 
provided that the duty should be paid by the first pur- 
chasers.^® 

A brief survey of the legislation of New York will 
not be amiss at this place by way of illustration, though 
in this colony the economic motives were not so strong as 
in the southern colonies.^^ Her first act provided, as a 
revenue measure, a duty of 30s. on negro and Indian 
slaves not imported directly ^'from their own countries," 
and half that amount if imported directly. The act was 
probably disallowed by the Crown the following year.^^ 
In 1709 the duty on slaves not imported directly from 
Africa was £3. It also was a revenue measure. ^^ A new 
principle was introduced in 1714 by an act providing that 
slaves imported directly from Africa in vessels owned by 
the inhabitants in the colony were to pay seven and a 
half ounces of plate, otherwise the duty was ten ounces 
whether from Africa, the West Indies or the neighboring 
colonies. Two years later the rates were five and ten 

49 N. Y. Col. Doc, VII, 907 ; VIII, 452 ; Votes of the Assembly 
of Pa., II, 251, 269, 331; III, 18, 160, 346, etc.; Ripley, Financial 
History of Virginia, 73-78; Hill, Stages of Tariff Policy, 27-30. 

50 See, e. g., Cooper, Statutes of S. C, IV, 187; Hening, Stat- 
utes of Vir., IV, 318; V, 92; VI, 218. 

51 For a view of the legislation in each colony, see DuBois, cited 
above. 

52 Duties were occasionally imposed in earlier acts upon Indian 
slaves, but the commercial importance of this factor is practically 
negligible.— Col. Laws of N. Y., I, 484; N. Y. Col. Doc, IV, 1066. 

53 Col. Laws of N. Y., I, 675; N. Y. Col. Doc, V, 178, 185, 293; 
Journal of the Council of N. Y., I, 288. The act was continued in 
1710 and 1711.— Col. Laws of N. Y., I, 714, 736. 



IMPORT AND EXPORT DUTIES 35 

ounces respectively. Revenue and the political effects of 
the negro plot of 1711 were important factors in shaping 
this bill. The desire to encourage direct importation from 
Africa was also an end which these acts had in view; 
England, however, objected to this feature and the As- 
sembly provided that negroes imported in English vessels 
should not pay higher duties than those paid on negroes 
imported in vessels of the inhabitants of New York.^* The 
later acts of this colony, like many of the acts of other 
colonies, sought to discriminate between direct importa- 
tions from Africa as opposed to importations from the 
plantations. The rates were 40s. and £4 respectively. 
At various times the economic value of slaves was con- 
sidered, as for example in the address of Governor Cosby 
to the Assembly in which he expected the ^^ greatest evill'^ 
to ensue from too great an importation of slaves.^^ Al- 
though revenue was perhaps the chief purpose of the duty 
on slaves imported into New York, the amount realized 
at the time of the Revolution was not important.^^ 

The tendency of the legislation of the colonies from the 
decade before the Revolution until the constitutional con- 
vention was strongly toward restriction or total prohibi- 
tion of the slave trade to these colonies.^^ The action of 
the Assembly, at the outbreak of the Revolution was 

54 Col. Laws of N. Y., I, 803, 899, 1012; Journal of the Council 
of N. Y., I, 433, 434, 436; N. Y. Col. Doc, V, 927, 928. 

55 Col. Laws of N. Y., II, 254, 430, 772, 1048; III, 31, 87, 151, 
etc. The act was continued by annual grants to the Revolution. 
Journal of the Council of N. Y., I, 631; II, 1912, 1974. A pe- 
tition by merchants from Bristol led to the rejection of the act by 
the Crown in 1735, and in an additional instruction to the Governor 
it was stated that the duty on slaves should not be payable by the 
importer.— N. Y. Col. Doc, VI, 32-34, 37, 38. The subsequent acts 
did not follow these instructions. 

56 N. Y. CoL Doc, V, 814; VIII, 447, 453. 

5T DuBois, Suppression of the Slave Trade, 39, 41; Force, American 
Archives, passim. 

The period from the Revolution to the constitutional convention 



36 IMPORT AND EXPORT DUTIES 

chiefly a war measure, yet underlying its action on the 
slave-trade clause were economic and moral, as well as 
political motives. Its reception in several of the colonies 
or states was by no means cordial.^^ 

Free Trade and the Importation of Goods.^^ The col- 
onies were dependent upon trade with England, the plan- 
tations or certain markets permitted by parliamentary 
acts. It is diflScult, if not impossible, to determine with 
any degree of precision the strength of a free trade move- 
ment in the several colonies. Most of them, as we have 
seen, imposed tariff duties to secure revenue ; ^^ their acts 
concerning English goods and ships, when entire freedom 
from duties was granted, was due chiefly to the complaints 
of English merchants, and the exercise of the prerogative 
by the Crown. The policy of permitting drawbacks on 
goods duly reexported is evidence of the desire to encourage 
trade and navigation. Most of the colonies were, as a 
matter of fact, under the regime of free trade for short 
periods of time, although such a condition was probably 
as often accidental as it was premeditated. 

With the exception of Massachusetts, free trade was 
predominant in most commodities (if not all) in the New 
England colonies.^^ New Hampshire seems to have set- 
tled on the policy of free trade after 1722, for from that 

witnessed the extension of this tendency in formal enactments or in 
constitutional provisions. 

58 DuBois, Suppression of the Slave Trade, 41-47; MacDonald, 
Select Documents. 

59 The term "free trade" is not used here in antithesis to protec- 
tion, but to a tariff for revenue, which was the declared object of 
most of the tariff acts during the colonial period. The term also 
embodies the restrictions of the parliamentary acts of trade and 
navigation, unless otherwise stated. 

«o See, e. g., the letter of Governor Johnson of South Carolina, in 
1708, to the Board of Trade, cited in McCrady, South Carolina, I, 
479 ; N. H. Province Papers, III, 34-36. 

•1 Massachusetts even exempted the products of New England, as 
well as certain other commodities from time to time, from impart 



IMPORT AND EXPORT DUTIES 37 

time to the Revolution she had practically no tariff sys- 
tem.®^ Connecticut and Rhode Island did not have much 
of a tariff. Both provided ad valorem duties at times on 
goods brought in by transient traders or non-inhabitants. 
In addition, Connecticut had an almost continuous series 
of acts imposing duties on liquors, and also provided a 
duty on tea in 1757.^^ Rhode Island placed duties on 
negroes imported into the colony, and an occasional im- 
post on goods from the neighboring colonies in the in- 
terests of her trade.^* The emphasis on direct taxation 
in the New England colonies as well as the activity of the 
New England merchant in trade doubtless influenced the 
Assemblies in their attitude toward the imposition 'of 
duties on articles of commerce.^^ 

In the middle colonies, New York had a continuous 
tariff system for almost a century prior to the Revolution 
where emphasis was placed upon duties as a source of 
revenue. The Assembly of New York experienced some 
difficulty in 1708 in securing revenue, by means of tariff 
duties, because of the hindrance to trade, ^' which if con- 
tinued, will unavoidably prove the Ruin of the Colony. ' ' ^^ 

duties subsequent to 1692. — ^Acts and Resolves, I, 31, 269, 343, etc.; 
II, 11, 48, 75, etc.; Ill, 81, 184, etc. 

62 Thus Robinson asserts that such a policy existed "from 1722 
to the Revolution, when freedom of trade represented the settled 
policy of the province, and the attempts to secure revenue from im- 
ported liquors were temporary in their nature, and may be re- 
garded as expedients to which the province resorted to relieve some 
pressing temporary necessity." — History of Taxation in N. H., in 
Amer. Econ. Assn., Series 3, vol. Ill, 64, 65. 

63 Public Rec. of Conn., IV, 249; VI, 36, 224, etc.; XI, 10; XIII, 
72, 299; N. Y. Col. Doc; III, 798; IV, 37. 

«* Kimball, Corres. of Governors of R. I., I, 73; Col. Rec. of R. 
L, III, 422; IV, 423, 450, 454. 

65 Public Rec. of Conn., X, 624 ; Robinson, History of Taxation in 
N. H., chap. Ill; Mead, Conn, as a Corporate Colony, 28, 32; Os- 
good, American Colonies, I, 477. 

66 Journal of the Council of N. Y., I, 435. In 1755, in calling for 



38 IMPORT AND EXPORT DUTIES 

It was exceptional indeed for New Jersey to impose du- 
ties on imports. One or two acts imposing duties on rum 
and negroes, in addition to export duties, constitute the 
entire range of her activities. At the outset this colony 
was anxious to promote trade and sought to establish a 
free port at Perth Amboy. Complaints were made by the 
Governor of New York; for such a port ^^must certainly 
destroy" the trade of New York. As a non-commercial 
colony, however. New Jersey should not receive too much 
emphasis for her free trade attitude. ^^ The assembly of 
Delaware did not impose any duties on goods, but there is 
evidence to show that those imposed by Pennsylvania, at 
any rate the earlier ones, extended also to the three 
*4ower counties." ^^ It also was a non-commercial colony. 
The acts of the Pennsylvania Assembly are continuous to 
1723, after which date further duties were imposed on 
negroes. To secure revenue in 1758, a duty on spirits and 
sugar, as well as upon tonnage, was proposed. At the sec- 
ond reading of the bill, all of the council ^ ' were of opinion 
that Trade should be the last thing Taxed ; that an exemp- 
tion from Duties and the Freedom of the Port had more 
than anything contributed to the increase of our Trade, 
and they were afraid this would divert it. " ^^ A petition 
from merchants of Philadelphia considered the means of 

more revenue, the Governor said to the members of the Assembly, 
"I shaU only recommend to you to avoid as much as possible the 
laying any further Impositions on Trade, upon the Encouragement 
of which the Prosperity of every trading Country principally de- 
pends."— Ibid, II, 1223. New York had duties from 1665 by Eng- 
lish authority, but these duties were not passed by an Assembly until 
after its constitution in 1683. — Ibid, VIII et seq.; N. Y. Col. Doc, 
III, 289. 

67 N. Y. Col. Doc, III, 798; IV, 37; N. J. Archives, 1st series, 
227, 231, 238, 252, 405. 

08 Cf. note 3. 

6»Col. Rec of Pa., VIII, 30, 31; also quoted by Hill, Stages of 
Tariff Policy, Amer. Econ. Assn., 1893, 36. 



IMPORT AND EXPORT DUTIES 39 

securing the revenue as ^^ unequal and burdensome to a 
few." Upon reconsideration the bill was finally passed/^ 
In matters of trade the southern colonies had a problem 
different from that of the northern colonies. They 
had comparatively little shipping of their own, hence their 
staples and return cargoes were carried chiefly by English 
and New England ship-masters. Then, too, their fiscal 
systems necessitated greater dependence on indirect taxes 
perhaps than was the case in the northern colonies. Nev- 
ertheless, no elaborate tariff system is found in any of the 
southern colonies except in South Carolina."^^ Virginia 
established free trade in 1644. Owing to the opposition 
to the commonwealth in England, Virginia was forced to 
surrender to an English commission. By the terms of the 
surrender, freedom of trade was accorded ''as the people 
of England do enjoy to all places and with all nations ac- 
cording to the lawes of that commonwealth." Moreover, 
it was declared that Virginia should be free from all taxes, 
customs and impositions except those levied under the au- 
thority of its assemblies."^^ The first import duty was 
passed in 1661, providing a duty of 6d. per gallon on rum 
and Id. per pound on sugar. It was repealed shortly after, 
chiefly because of ''the obstructions it may bring to the 
trade of the country." The report of Governor Berkeley 
in 1671 stated that there were no import duties, and indeed 
none was provided until the duty on liquors in 1684 sought 
to lessen the burdens of direct taxation. "^^ Subsequent to 

70 The incidence of this tax is presented in the petition. — Votes 
of the Assembly of Pa., V, 9, 10; Pa. Archives, 4th series, II, 963; 
Pa. Statutes at Large, V, 352, 409. 

71 The tariff acts of South Carolina were as important as those 
of New York or Massachusetts. Exemptions were granted at times, 
as in the act of 1720 which excepted certain provisions from the 
other colonies from a 5% impost. — Cooper, Statutes of S. C, III, 
115; Carroll, Historical Coll. of S. C, II, 259. 

72Hening, Statutes of Vir., I, 296, 363-367. 
73 Ibid, II, 128, 212, 516; III, 23. 



40 IMPORT AND EXPORT DUTIES 

that period, import duties were regularly imposed, chiefly 
on liquors and negroes. Free trade tendencies were not 
perceptible in the other southern colonies. 

Retaliatory Acts. The colonies did not often find it 
necessary to impose discriminating or retaliatory duties 
upon goods from neighboring colonies. In practically 
every case of retaliation, the reason can be traced to a 
boundary dispute."^* The retaliatory acts thus assume a 
form of commercial coercion. 

Maryland's boundary dispute with Pennsylvania was at 
the basis of the 9d. per gallon duty on liquors imported 
from the latter colony, though the duty when imported 
from other places was 3d. Enacted in 1704, this duty 
was continued for twenty years. Maryland also prohib- 
ited the importation of tobacco, provisions, beer, malt and 
horses from Pennsylvania ''and the territories thereto be- 
longing. ' ' '^^ Maryland also had a boundary dispute with 
Virginia which brought about discriminating legislation 
and embargoes.*^^ 

Probably the most serious retaliatory act, had it been 
carried into effect, was the act passed in 1721 by Massa- 

74 In their efforts to encourage the direct trade of the colony, 
higher duties were occasionally imposed on goods coming by land 

(i. e., from a neighboring colony) rather than by sea. Some of 
these acts were also intended chiefly to safeguard the interest of 
the inhabitants, as in the act of North Carolina in 1751, imposing 
a duty on rum from its southern neighbor. — State Rec. of N. C, 
XXIII, 363. 

75 Bacon, Laws of Md., 1704, ch. 30 and 43; 1715, ch. 36; Pa. 
Archives, 2d series, XVI, contains the bills filed in chancery in 1735 
and 1736 for the plaintiffs in the boundary question; Archives of 
Md., Proceedings of Assembly, 1707-1710, 483, 505, 574; ibid, 
Proceedings of the Council, 1698-1731, passim. Cf. also Pa. 
Statutes at Large, III, 145-150; Col. Rec. of Pa., II, 611; III, 38,— 
providing that "a duty be laid on goods imported from New York 
& Province adjacent, equivalent to what they have laid on ours.'' 

76 Elliott, Tariff Controversy, Leland Stanford Jr., Univ. Mono- 
graphs, 1892, 17. 



IMPORT AND EXPORT DUTIES 41 

chusettsJ"^ The preamble of the act states that the prov- 
ince of New Hampshire had exacted a duty of 2s. per 
thousand upon lumber ^'brought down the river, com- 
monly called Piscataqua River, and transported into this 
province (though the trees out of which the boards are 
made, grow upon lands within this province, and are cut at 
mills in the county of York. . . ." On the other 
hand, it is asserted that the export duty on timber, as well 
as prohibitive duties upon wines and liquors except from 
place of growth and produce, were only prepared in the 
form of a bill in the New Hampshire house, and that the 
bill was actually rejected by the council.'^^ The New 
Hampshire bill, as passed, provided the usual duties on 
wines and liquors and added an export duty of 12d. per 
quintal of fish unless exported to ^ ^foreign parts." Mass- 
achusetts considered the action of New Hampshire '^ unjust 
and oppressive," and in retaliation imposed both import 
and export duties on goods in the trade with the latter 
colony.'^^ The acts of both provinces were probably re- 
pealed by the following year.^® 

Drawbacks. Little, if any, uniformity existed as to the 
amount of the drawback on goods brought into the several 
colonies. Drawbacks were rarely granted in the earlier 

77 Acts and Resolves, II, 230. 

78 For details and further references see Robinson, History of 
Taxation in N. H., 60-63. 

79 The duties were as follows : £5 per hogshead of rum, £5 per 
pipe of wine, and 10% on all other goods from New Hampshire; 
while the export duties were 10s. per barrel of beef or pork, 5s. per 
cwt. of bread, Is. per bushel of wheat, 6d. per bushel of Indian corn, 
and 10% ad valorem on all other goods. This was one of the few 
acts in which Massachusetts imposed duties on exports. 

80 Almost a century previously, Massachusetts had imposed heavy 
duties on goods from Plymouth, Connecticut and New Hampshire, 
because of a dispute concerning the maintenance of a fort. — Mass. 
Rec, II, 182, 183, 269, 270; Public Rec. of Conn., I, 119, 120, 170. 
Cf. also the dispute between New York and Massachusetts. — N. Y. 
Col. Doc, III, 241, 242. 



42 IMPORT AND EXPOET DUTIES 

acts, but were often granted in the eighteenth century, on 
liquors and negro slaves. This was especially true of 
Connecticut, Ehode Island and Virginia. The reason for 
the drawback was the encouragement of trade. This was 
particularly true of the northern colonies which were also 
the shipping colonies. Thus an act of Massachusetts, 
passed in 1668, permitted one-half of the duty to be re- 
funded, although no time limit was placed upon the reex- 
portation of the goods. The act of 1692 provided a draw- 
back of two-thirds of the duty on liquors and other goods 
reexported within nine months after importation. The 
prevailing amount of the drawback in South Carolina and 
Pennsylvania was three-fourths of the duty.^^ 

EXPORT DUTIES. 

Scope of the Export Duties, The export duties were 
not nearly so important in the commercial legislation of the 
colonial period as the import duties. Possible exceptions 
to this general statement might include Connecticut, New 
Jersey, Maryland and Virginia, especially the last three. 
Rhode Island and Delaware did not enact laws imposing 
duties upon exports; while several of the colonies enacted 
only one or two laws of such a nature. Furthermore, in 
viewing the colonial period as a whole, we find that ex- 
port duties were not imposed by any of the New England 
or middle colonies (except New York) after 1750. They 
were of more importance in the southern colonies, although 
North Carolina and Georgia did not rely upon them to any 
extent for purposes of revenue. 

These duties were imposed upon a large variety of ar- 

81 Journal of the Council of N. Y., I, 9 ; Whitmore, Col. Laws of 
Mass. (1887), 69; Acts and Resolves of Mass., I, 31, 208; American 
Historical Ass'n, III, 228, 229. Pa., Statutes at Large, IV, 115, 154, 
272; Cooper, Statutes of South Carolina, II, 656; III, 56, 159, 556; 
Batchellor, Laws of N. H., I, 527. 



IMPORT AND EXPOET DUTIES 43 

tides at various times, but since their purpose was pri- 
marily for revenue, tobacco, skins and furs, and lumber, 
were the principal objects taxed. 

Purpose of the Export Duties. The chief purpose of 
the duty on exports was to obtain revenue. In only a few 
instances was encouragement to home industries men- 
tioned as the chief purpose. The acts which were framed 
with the latter purpose dealt with raw materials of com- 
merce, such as grain, timber, skins and furs, which it was 
believed could be worked up within the colony. Thus 
wheat was required to pay an export duty in New Jersey 
in 1714 in order to encourage the inhabitants to make 
their own flour.^^ A similar law was passed by the same 
colony eleven years later, and the policy was extended to 
staves, heading and other forms of timber, with a view to 
encourage coopers to make casks within the colony.^^ 
Skins and furs were more frequently required to pay ex- 
port duties, in order to have them worked up by the tan- 
ners, curriers and shoemakers mthin the colonies. This 
was especially true of the southern colonies, where the 
plantation came to be more and more self-supporting.^* In 
fact, so solicitous were some of the colonies to encourage 
the establishment of tanneries, that embargoes were often 
imposed (rather than export duties) as a check upon the 
exportation of raw hides and skins.®^ Sometimes the ex- 
port duties were imposed to retain a commodity in the 
colony for consumption, a provision which applied in some 

82 N. J. Archives, IV, 196. 

83 N. Y. Col. Doc, V, 767. The eastern division of New Jersey 
was chiefly interested in the passage of this act. 

8* Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, II, 474-480 ; Weeden, 
Economic and Social New England, I, 308; Bishop, History of Amer- 
ican Manufactures, I, 429 et seq. 

85 Cf. p. 81. We must note in this place an act passed by the 
colony of New York in 1684 which provided a 10% ad valorem 
duty upon wheat, whale oil and whale bone which was not ex- 
ported to England or the British West Indies. Certain provisos 



44 IMPORT AND EXPORT DUTIES 

colonies to European goods, iron or wool during the seven- 
teenth Qentury. Maryland imposed a 10^ ad valorem 
duty on European goods which were reexported ; ^® Vir- 
ginia imposed a duty on iron and wool exported from the 
colony.^"^ On the whole, the export duty was not made 
an effective weapon for restraining the exportation of 
commodities which were the produce of the colony; for, 
when such a course was deemed essential the usual method 
was the embargo. Had the industrial activities been 
more developed, probably this phase of the export duty 
would have met with more attention. 

As a source of revenue the export duty was compara- 
tively important, particularly in Maryland and Virginia, 
where it was one of the chief sources of indirect taxation. 
Like other sources of revenue it was a subject of dispute 
between the Assembly and the Governor, and the account 
of the various items of indirect taxation would be incom- 
plete, which did not take note of such disputes. As a 
source of revenue, the export duties were not imposed to 
anything like the extent which was possible, had there 
been fewer disputes between the Governor and the As- 
sembly, and had the resources been better utilized or the 
administrative methods more adequate. ^^ In the southern 
colonies more reliance was placed on this form of tax as a 
source of revenue.^^ The objects for which the export 

were inserted, but the records do not tell us definitely what they were. 
The avowed object of the act was to develop the direct trade with 
England.— Col. Laws of N. Y., I, 165. 

86 Bacon, Laws of Md., 1695, ch. 24; 1696, ch. 9. 

87Hening, Statutes of Vir., II, 115; III, 63. The latter act im- 
posed a duty of one penny per pound, but it never went into effect. 

88 Osgood, Amer. Col., I, 468, 479; II, 347, 356, 369. "Conflicts 
between legislatures and executives arose more from fiscal questions 
than from those of any other character." — Ibid II, 347. Douglas, 
Financial History of Mass., 32, 37-41 ; Hobinson, History of Taxation 
in N. H., 3 et seq. ; Smith, South Carolina, 289; Ripley, Financial 
History of Vir., 32-36, 62 et seq. 

89 There is considerable matei'ial in the variotis colotiial dbcuments 



IMPOET AND EXPORT DUTIES 45 

duty was levied were usually specified in the act itself; 
such specifi^c appropriations included, among others, sal- 
aries of officials, the defense of the colony, public schools 
and support for a college.^^ For a closer study of the ex- 
port duties for revenue, we shall consider the duties im- 
posed on tobacco, lumber, skins and furs. 

Export Duties on Tobacco, The welfare and prosperity 
of two colonies, Maryland and Virginia, came to be closely 
allied with the tobacco crop, even from the earliest days. 
Other colonies also took up its cultivation, but in only the 
two mentioned do we find that an export duty was levied 
upon tobacco as a fiscal measure.^^ 

Maryland imposed a duty on tobacco as early as 1638, 
when a 5% duty was levied, unless exported to England, 
Ireland and Virginia.^^ A similar law was passed in 
1649,^^ whereby a duty of 10s. per hundredweight was im- 
posed upon tobacco shipped in Dutch vessels ^^for any 
other' Port than His Majesty's." Imposed originally for 
a term of seven years, it was ultimately repealed in 
1676.^* The first really important act, however, was 
passed in 1671.^^ It gave the proprietor a duty of 2s. per 

which have been published, concerning the amount of revenue raised 
from export duties. The material is, however, far from complete. 
See also references in the preceding footnote. 

90 Mereness, Maryland as a Proprietary Province, 343. 

91 New Netherland had a duty on tobacco exported as early as 
1638. — ^Laws and Ordinances of New Netherland, 17. It was also 
dutiable in some of the colonies when imported. 

92 Bacon, Laws of Md., ch. 2. The proceeds of the original act 
were intended for defense. It was very unusual to impose ad valorem 
duties on exports. This act was continued in 1641 and again in 1642 
for two years. When the bill came up for discussion in 1641 it was 
proposed to make the duty perpetual. — Ibid, 1641, ch. 4; 1642, ch. 2; 
September session 1642, ch. 1. 

93 Ibid, ch. 9. 

94 Bacon, Laws of Md., ch. 2. 

95 Md. Archives, Proceedings of the Assembly, 1666-1676, pp. 255- 
258. 



46 IMPORT AND EXPORT DUTIES 

hogshead of tobacco, one-half being intended for the de- 
fense and support of the government of Maryland, the 
other for the proprietor. The grant to the proprietor was 
made with the understanding that he would accept good 
tobacco at 2d. per pound in lieu of his quit rents and alien- 
ation fines. The act was the cause of much dispute and ill- 
feeling between the proprietors and the Assembly for the 
next two generations. By an act of 1676 the same duty 
was continued through the life of the new proprietor, 
Cecilius Calvert,^^ but in 1692 the Assembly (under the 
royal government) granted to the Governor as a salary, ^"^ 
the shilling not intended for the personal use of the propri- 
etor. In 1701 it was held by the Crown that one-fourth 
of the shilling should be used for the defense of the prov- 
ince.^^ In 1704, while still a royal province, the pro- 
prietor's shilling was made perpetual,^^ but it was found 
subsequently that the proprietor secured the best of the 
bargain. The Assembly attempted, after a lapse of years, 
to contend that the act was inoperative, since it had been 
enacted during the royal government. The Assembly 
stated that it was ^^ sensibly concerned to find that 12d. 
sterling per hogshead since September 29, 1733, had been 
levied and collected from the people of the Province with- 
out any law that we know of to warrant the 
same. . . .'' In 1750 the same point was again brought 
up, but it is probable that the proprietor was within his 
legal rights in this matter and in that of a 14d. tonnage 
duty, and therefore the people were not too anxious to have 
the king in council decide the matter.^ Meanwhile, other 

96 Ibid, p. 550. 

»7 Ibid, 1684-1692, pp. 438, 441. 

98 Mereness, Md., 172. 

99 Md. Archives, Proceedings of the Assembly, 1704-1706, p. 312. 

1 Mereness, Maryland, 346-348. Mereness sums the matter up as 
follows: "It is, therefore, clear that originally the duty for the 
support of government was given only in return for favorable terms 



IMPORT AND EXPORT DUTIES 47 

duties of a temporary nature had been imposed upon to- 
bacco exported out of the province. In 1717 they 
amounted to a total of 3s. 9d. per hogshead of tobacco, 
which the Assembly itself considered very high.^ The last 
act imposed prior to the Revolution, of which we find any 
record, was in 1747 (when a further duty of 3d. per hogs- 
head was provided). Duties under the acts in force at that 
time still continued to be collected.^ 

In Virginia also an important income was derived from 
the duty on tobacco exported from the province. As a 
source of revenue, tobacco was not taxed. Such a duty 
was not imposed at such an early date as in Maryland, and 
more exemptions were allowed. The earliest acts, however, 
were political rather than fiscal in scope. The 10s. duty 
per hogshead of tobacco not exported directly to England 
in English vessels was aimed at the Dutch, with whom the 
mother country was struggling for commercial supremacy. 
Trade with the Dutch, however, did not cease,* but the 
Dutch colony of New Netherlands shortly after the passage 
of this act, provided duties on goods imported from the 
English colonies in America, yet specifically exempted 
tobacco.^ That this was the intent of the Virginia act may 
be seen in part by the subsequent acts exempting Vir- 

on which to pay quit-rents; that, later, the provision for the support 
of government was given an unlimited term of duration, while that 
with respect to quit-rents remained limited; and that, finally, the 
people themselves rejected the temporary provision for the payment of 
quit-rents, and were left with nothing but the perpetual agreement to 
pay for the support of government." 345. 

2 A Complete Collection of the Laws of Md., 181. The 2s. granted 
to the proprietor in 1715 continued in force by successive acts until 
1733, and was granted as an equivalent for the quit-rents and aliena- 
tion fines. Both parties (the proprietor and the people) felt sus- 
picious about the agreement. Cf. Mereness, Md., pp. 80-84. 

3 Bacon, Laws of Md., 1747, ch. 19; Correspondence of Governor 
Sharpe, II, 4. 

4 Bruce, Econ. Hist, of Vir., I, 353-355. 

5 Laws and Ordinances of New Netherland, 348. 



48 IMPORT AND EXPORT DUTIES 

ginia owners of ships from the duty on tobacco,® and later 
the New England and adjacent provinces were exempted 
from the payment of the duty/ The real purpose of the 
latter act, however, was the belief of the members of the 
Assembly that the duty interfered with the trade of the 
northern provinces.^ As a purely revenue measure, to- 
bacco was not taxed until 1658 when a duty of 2s. per 
hogshead was imposed,^ with the view to remove some- 
what the burdens of the poll tax, and at the same time 
furnish a revenue for public officials in the colony, and 
perhaps bring in a large amount of coin. Repealed in 
1659, it was reenacted three years later, and became *'a 
source of large revenue'' for a long time.^^ Numerous 
complaints were made by shipmasters concerning the size 
of the casks in which tobacco was shipped, and in conse- 
quence laws were enacted providing the size and for in- 
spection of tobacco for export. Partly on account of this 
practical difficulty in loading vessels to the best advantage, 
and partly because of the comparative ease in smuggling, 
the tobacco came to be exported in bulk, as well as in 
casks. The Virginia Assembly therefore imposed a 

6Hening, Statutes, I, 537; II, 133. 

7 Ibid, II, 218. 

8 Bruce, op. cit., II, 319; Ripley, Financial History of Vir., 58; 
Hening, Statutes, II, 218. Cf. a letter by the lord proprietor of Mary- 
land in 1661, in Proceedings of Assembly, 1637-1664, 420, 421. The 
exemption of the 2s. duty was accorded to Maryland tobacco laden 
in vessels on the Virginia shore of the Potomac, on condition that a 
like exemption should be granted to Virginia tobacco laden on the 
Maryland shore. The course of the Potomac as a partial boundary 
was the occasion of other disputes and adjustments. Cf. Bruce, Econ. 
History of Vir., I, 387, 388. 

9 Hening, Statutes, I, 491. As late as 1655 an act of Assembly had 
exempted inhabitants from the payment of any "taxe or custome (on 
tobacco) whatsoever, notwithstanding any thing in any former act or 
acts provided to the contrary." — Ibid, I, 410. In 1673 it was pro- 
vided that the duty should be remitted if ample proof were fur- 
nished that the tobacco had been taken by the enemy. — Ibid, II, 309. 

10 Bruce, Economic History of Vir., I, 386. 



IMPORT AND EXPORT DUTIES 49 

duty on tobacco exported in bulk, placing the duty 
at 2s. for five hundred pounds of tobacco. ^^ This 2s. duty 
was continued from time to time down to the Revolution, 
when the export duty on tobacco was repealed.^^ 

Though imposed by Maryland and Virginia alone, the 
export duties on tobacco give us the best instance of such 
a duty for revenue on a staple article. As a fiscal measure, 
it was productive, but it had the capital defect that the 
exports varied enormously in amount and in value.^^ 

Export Duties on Lumber, Six colonies passed acts im- 
posing duties upon the exportation of timber. The rev- 
enue feature was not so pronounced on this commodity 
as it was on tobacco. That the duty was imposed with a 
view to encourage home industry is suggested by the fact 
that the colonies which imposed duties upon lumber were 
near the shipbuilding and coopering centers.^* 

In New Hampshire laws on this subject were proposed 
as early as 1693,^^ but the first of these laws was passed 
in 1702. It provided a duty upon all lumber '^trans- 
ported out of or imported into this province. "^^ When 

11 Hening, Statutes, II, 413; Bruce, Econ. History of Virginia, I, 
382, 383. 

12 Hening, Statutes IX, 162. It is interesting to note here that 
England permitted Virginia to apply the proceeds of the revenue 
duty of Id. per pound on tobacco exported to any British colony in 
America, to the maintenance of William and Mary College. Ibid, 
VI, 92. 

13 Ripley, Financial History of Virginia, 62-67 ; Bruce, Economic 
History of Virginia, passim, 

14 Perhaps an exception to this statement is South Carolina where 
a duty of 20s. per hundredweight was laid upon cedar timber above 
a certain size. Yet this duty was imposed at a time when that 
province was encouraging her shipping. — Cooper, Statutes, II, 200, 
and reenacted at subsequent sessions. 

15 In the act proposed in 1693 all kinds of lumber exported to 
"New England, New York, &c." were to pay specific duties. The 
proceeds were to be applied to the maintenance of the fort on Great 
Island. — N. H. Province Papers, III, 6, 7. 

18 Passed in 1702, and continued the following year. — ^N. H. Prov- 
ince Papers, III, 249, 250. 



50 IMPORT AND EXPORT DUTIES 

the Governor attempted to secure its reenactment in 1704, 
his recommendation was not favorably received, since the 
assembly preferred direct taxes ss on the whole more 
equitable. The words of the Governor are worth quoting 
here in part as they show the fiscal importance of this duty. 
He said, — '^I know no better article for the advancement 
of the Revenue than that of lumber, which was no hard 
thing these two last years when they were below twenty 
shillings the thousand; now they are almost double that 
price they will better bear it, — and I am to tell you that 
laying of that tax is very well taken by the Right Honor- 
able, the Lords Committee of Trade and Plantations. . . . 
I judge it the most equitable and easy method, and shall 
take care it be better collected than heretofore. ' ' ^^ 
After a lapse of some years, another act was finally passed 
by New Hampshire (1714), since it was apparent from a 
report of the finances of the colony by the Governor that 
the proceeds of the direct taxes would be required for the 
province debt. Duties on boards, planks and staves, in 
addition to import duties upon liquors, molasses, sugar and 
tobacco, were therefore imposed, but there was still dis- 
satisfaction among the lumber interests and the export 
duties lapsed the following year.^^ 

Connecticut, the only other New England colony to levy 
export duties on timber, was the most active of them all 
in this respect.^^ Her acts were not so much to secure 

17 N. H. Province Papers, III, 291; quoted in part by Robinson, 
History of Taxation in N. H., 55. 

18 N. H. State Papers, XIX, 52. The duties were as follows : 
boards. Is. ; pine planks, 3s. ; red oak hogshead staves, 6d. ; white oak 
staves, 9d.; white oak pipe staves. Is.; Indian staves, £10. 

19 Two other New England colonies, in addition to those already 
mentioned, had provided to a slight extent export duties upon tim- 
ber. The act of 1691 by Massachusetts, in addition to a large list of 
goods, imposed an export duty on boards, hoops and shingles. The 
act was clearly for purposes of revenue, but was not continued after 
1691.— BatcheUor, Laws of N. H., I, 491. The retaliatory act of 



IMPORT AND EXPORT DUTIES 51 

revenue, as to encourage her trade with the West Indies 
and the Portuguese possessions. To some extent the du- 
ties were imposed to protect her timber preserves for her 
own shipbuilding and coopering industries, although this 
was only a minor consideration. Her first act, contained 
in the code of 1673, provided rather heavy duties upon a 
large variety of lumber. The rates were as follows: 8s. 
per 1000 barrel staves; 10s. per 1000 hogshead staves; 
15s. per 1000 pipe or butt staves; 15s. per 1000 hogshead 
headings; 8s. per 1000 barrel headings; 10s. per ton of 
ship's timber; 3s. per 100 feet of two-inch plank; Is. 6d. 
per 100 feet of boards; and 10s. per cord of bark. It is 
probable that this act was not intended for revenue; it is 
more likely that its primary purpose was to encourage 
home industry.^^ The subsequent acts provided export 
duties on timber sent to the neighboring colonies (Massa- 
chusetts Bay, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island and 
New Hampshire) ^^ and in the main were intended to 
encourage the trade of her own inhabitants, rather than 
permit the neighboring colonies to engross that trade by 
the staves, headings and ship timber which they would 
export to the West Indies. The first act to that end w^as 
enacted in 1714, but was amended the following year, in- 
creasing the kinds of timber to be taxed.^^ The act of 

1721 provided a 10% ad valorem duty on exports to New Hampshire. 
Cf. p. 45. 

Plymouth also imposed duties upon timber exported. In 1661 
boards and planks paid a duty of 3s. per hundred; heading and 
barrel staves 6d. per hundred; and hogshead heading and staves 8d. 
per hundred. — Plymouth Col. Records, XI, 132. Subsequently, how- 
ever, to encourage home industry, no timber could be exported until 
wrought up in vessels or casks. — Ibid, XI, 222. 

20 For prices of timber in New England at this time see Weeden, 
Econ. and Social History of N. Eng., I, 333. 

21 In the acts of 1714 and 1715. New Jersey was not included in 
the list of 1747.— Public Rec. of Conn., V, 434, 499; IX, 286. 

22 Public Records of Conn., V, 434, 499. The duties of the act of 



52 IMPORT AND EXPORT DUTIES 

1747 again enlarged this list, and in several instances in- 
creased the rates.22 Although Connecticut had duties on 
timber exported out of the province for about three-fourths 
of a century, the dominant purpose in view was the en- 
couragement of her direct trade, rather than revenue. In 
that respect it is not improbable that her policy was influ- 
enced by New Jersey. 

The latter province had been desirous of protecting her 
timber from unnecessary waste, yet the principle employed 
in part was the imposition of a duty upon lumber ex- 
ported to the neighboring colonies. After several at- 
tempts ^* a bill was finally passed in 1714 imposing a duty 
of 30s. per 1000 pipe staves, and 20s. per 1000 hogshead 
staves, when exported to the neighboring colonies.^^ They 
were repealed three years later because they were ^'preju- 
dicial to the- inhabitants. ' ' ^^ The most comprehensive 
of her acts was passed in 1743.^^ Duties were imposed 
upon lumber exported ''to any of His Majesty's Colonies 
upon the Continent of America." The kinds of lumber 
taxed included ship's timber, planks and boards, masts, 
staves, headings and bolts.^^ The Assembly attempted to 
repeal a portion of the act the year following, but the 

1714 were as follows: barrel staves, 20s. per 1,000; hogshead or pipe 
staves, 30s. per 1,000. The act of 1715 provided the following du- 
ties: *'tuii'' of ship timber, 10s.; 100 ft. of plank, 5s.; 100 ft. of 
boards, 3s. 

23 Ibid., IX, 286. The duties were as follows : 1,000 barrel staves, 
15s.; 1,000 hhd. staves, 20s.; 1,000 pipe or butt staves, 30s.; 1,000 
hhd. heading, 30s.; 1,000 bbl. heading, 15s.; ton of ship timber, 20s.; 
100 ft. of planks, 5s.; 100 ft. of boards, 2s. 6d. ; cord of bark, 20s. 

24 N. J. Archives, XIII, 113, 461, 463, 534, 541. 

25 Allinson, Acts of the Assembly of N. J., 17. 

26 Bishop, History of American Manufactures, I, 109 ; N. J. Ar- 
chives, XIV, 26, 36, 38, 65. 

27 An act imposing duties on staves and heading was passed in 
1725. — Allinson, Acts of Assembly, 72. Moreover attempts were made 
to provide a new law. — ^N. J. Archives, XV, 146, 154, 159, 161, 168. 

28 Allinson, Acts of Assembly, 134. The duties were as follows: 



IMPORT AND EXPORT DUTIES 53 

council voted the bill down for the reason that the act 
had not been in force long enough to judge of its good or 
bad effects.^^ The effects produced were probably bene- 
ficial, for the act was continued down to the Revolution. ^° 

On the whole, it is fairly certain that the export duties 
on lumber were not so clearly for revenue as the duties 
upon tobacco. On lumber, the more important acts im- 
posed duties, when exported to neighboring colonies; 
whereas, in the case of tobacco, the duty was usually im- 
posed irrespective of its destination. That more burden- 
some duties were not imposed on the lumber trade must 
be accounted for upon two grounds, viz. : the system of 
taxation in the colonies in which the duty was imposed, and 
the belief that adequate revenue from such a duty would 
hinder the trade of the colonies. 

Export Ditties on Skins and Furs. The last staple arti- 
cles of commerce of importance during the colonial period, 
upon which export duties were imposed, were skins and 
furs. Of the twelve colonies which had export duties, 
eight had duties upon these commodities at one time or 
another; indeed in Georgia, North Carolina and Pennsyl- 
vania these were the only commodities upon which export 
duties were imposed.^^ Considering the great economic 
importance of the fur trade in the earlier history of the 
colonies, and the fact that it was in the northern colonies 
that it formed a peculiarly valuable article of export, it 
is significant that the export duties were more numerous 
in the southern colonies than in the northern colonies. 

logs and timber used for ships, 6d. per cubic foot; planks for the 
same purpose Id. per square foot; masts, yards and bowsprits, Is. 
per cubic foot; 1,000 staves, 10s., 20s., 25s. and 30s. 

29 N. J. Archives, XV, 388, 389. 

30 Bishop, op. cit., I, 109. 

31 Charter to Penn., etc. and Laws, 1682 to 1700, 138; State Rec* 
ords of N. C, XXIII, 613; Watkins, A Digest of the Laws of Geor- 
gia, 149, 180. 



54 IMPORT AND EXPORT DUTIES 

Although the system of taxation was partly responsible 
for such a result, we must not underestimate the fact that 
such a duty was imposed in northern colonies.^^ 

The trade with the Indians, the incentive to westward 
exploration and migration, the establishment of posts on 
the frontier are all inseparably bound up with this article 
of commerce. If any colony can be taken as having a 
preponderating interest in the fur trade, that colony must 
be New York. The Dutch, during their possession of this 
territory, developed a thriving trade with the Indians 
in furs, and in fact secured an important source of income 
from the export of this commodity.^^ When the English 
took possession in 1664, duties were imposed, and in 1665 
a proclamation appeared, to be in force until September, 
subjecting peltries to a duty of ten and a half per cent.^* 
The instructions to Governor Andros in 1674 included a 
provision for rates on certain goods. Beaver was re- 
quired to pay Is. 3d. per skin, and all other skins and 
furs were to pay ^^proportionably to Beaver. "^^ 
After the legislative Assembly was constituted the same 
policy was continued, though the skins were enumerated 
in detail with the rates.^® The duties were lower than 
those imposed under the proclamation of 1674. As a 
whole, the duties upon furs and skins exported from New 
York were clearly for revenue, as had been the case of 
the duties imposed previously by the Dutch. New York 
was very desirous of promoting the Indian fur trade, and 

32 Massachusetts had an export duty of 10s. for every £100 worth 
of peltries in 1691, as a revenue measure. — Batchellor, Laws of N. 
H., I, 490. Pennsylvania also imposed a single duty on skins. The 
most important northern colony in this respect was New York. 

33 Osgood, American Colonies, II, 358; Laws and Ordinances of 
New Netherlands, 48, 73, 138, 221, 349, etc. 

34 Ibid, II, 359. 

35 N. Y. Col. Doc, III, 217. 

36 Laws of the Col. of N. Y., I, 250, 290, etc. 



IMPORT AND EXPORT DUTIES 55 

in its attempts to promote it, met with greater success 
than any of the other English colonies in competing with 
the French.^^ As part of her efforts to secure control of 
the Indian fur trade, New York imposed duties on certain 
goods sent up the Hudson, and even at times the governor 
sought to check the exportation of these goods up the 
Hudson since they frequently found their way to Canada, 
and were used by the French in their trade with the In- 
dians. When prohibitions or restrictions were imposed by 
the Assembly, the trading interests saw to it that they 
were not strictly enforced. Some of these acts were dis- 
allowed by the Crown as a violation of the English acts of 
trade and navigation. ^^ 

The purpose of the three other colonies (Maryland, 
Virginia and South Carolina) which had fairly numerous 
duties on skins and furs exported, is perhaps not so clearly 
fiscal. The revenue feature was in several cases subor- 
dinate to a policy of encouraging certain home industries, 
though not infrequently it became essential to prohibit 
entirely the exportation of skins and furs. Various at- 
tempts were made in Maryland to regulate the export of 
skins and furs by duties, but the first act which was passed 
was in 1695. The proceeds were applied to provide rev- 
enue for free schools, although the chief source of income 
consisted of voluntary contributions.^^ In 1704 another 
act was passed toward the same end, and non-residents 

37 See Colden's Memoir on the Fur Trade, in N. Y. Col. Doc, V, 
726-733; also ibid, 745 et seq. These documents contain many ref- 
erences to the Indian fur trade. 

38 This regulation of goods bound up the Hudson was an important 
phase of the Indian trade. The Dutch had imposed similar duties 
during their occupation of New York. — Laws and Ordinances of New 
Netherland, 154, 172; N. Y. Col. Doc, V, 775, 778, 781, 782; Journal 
of the Council of N. Y., I, 591. 

39 Bacon, Laws of Md., chap. 23; Mereness, Maryland, 138, 139. 



56 IMPORT AND EXPORT DUTIES 

were required to pay double the regular duties.^^ With 
the repeal of this act in 1723, Maryland ceased to impose 
export duties upon skins and furs. 

South Carolina imposed duties upon skins to secure 
revenue during the earlier period for her fortifications, 
and later for general public expenses. Her first export 
duty (enacted in 1691) imposed specific duties on skins 
and furs.*^ The rates were modified subsequently, and in 
1716 duties were imposed upon tanned and neat leather 
calf skins and raw hides with the view to checking their 
exportation.*^ By this act the duties were made perpet- 
ual, but the Lords Proprietors repealed it three years 
after its enactment. Nevertheless, the duties on hides, 
skins and leather were practically restored by the act of 
1721 and further reenactments to 1767. South Carolina, 
therefore, may fairly be said to have had a definite fiscal 
policy in providing an export duty on skins and leather. 

Virginia was not as consistent as South Carolina in im- 
posing export duties on skins and furs, but she acted from 
similar motives. An export duty was laid upon hides as 
early as 1660,*^ though the early and even the later policy 
had been to prohibit the exportation of this article of 
consumption. Her first duty for revenue was imposed in 
1691 for the support of William and Mary College. Du- 
ties were imposed on iron and wool, and in addition Is. 
upon raw hides, 2s. upon tanned hides, 8d. upon buck- 
skins, 5d. upon doeskins, and Is. upon elkskins.** This 

40 Bacon, Laws of Md., ch. 27; repealed, 1723, ch. 11. The rates 
varied from 3f. to 12d. per skin. 

41 Cooper, Statutes of S. C, II, 64. The duties were as foUows : 
deer skins not stamped or tamped, 3d.; a pound of beaver skins, 
7%d. ; other skins, 3d.; fox or cat skin. Id.; boar skin, 6d.; raccoon 
skin, %d. A new act passed in 1696 and continued in 1699, 1700 and 
1702, made the duties uniformly Id. per skin or fur. 

4^2 Cooper, Statutes of S. C, II, 200, 649. 

43 Hening, Statutes, II, 124. 

44 Ibid, III, 63. 



IMPORT AND EXPORT DUTIES 57 

act never went into effect, and two years later a much 
better act, from the fiscal point of view, was passed, pro- 
viding duties varying from 3f. to 6d. per skin.*^ The 
duties were continued from time to time, and were some- 
times increased for special purposes. The most burden- 
some duty, as a revenue measure, was the act of 1744, when 
raw hides paid 2s. 6d. and tanned hides 5s. This rate 
proving prohibitive, the old rates were again replaced. 
Experience had shown that ^^six pence on a raw hide in- 
creases the college revenue, is easily borne by the com- 
munity, and not complained of by the trader or ex- 
porter."*® This statement was made by a joint commit- 
tee of the two houses, in response to the disallowance of 
the revised law^ enacted in 1748. It seems evident, how- 
ever, that the duties were still collected for the support 
of the college as late as 1765, for in that year the Assem- 
bly provided for the exemption from the payment of 
duties of dressed hides and skins if the exporter had 
brought them into the province.*^ 

Except in New York the duties imposed upon skins and 
furs in the seventeenth century were intended to restrict 
their exportation. Toward the end of that century and 
the beginning of the following century, the emphasis was 
placed upon revenue. With the exception of the four 
southern colonies south of Maryland, no export duties 
were imposed upon skins and furs after the middle of the 
eighteenth century. 

The export duties were more frequently applied than is 
usually recognized in the discussion of the historical im- 
portance of the export tax at the time of the constitutional 
convention. Its roots go deep into the colonial period, and 
these in turn are founded on the mercantile notions which 

45 Bruce, Econ. History of Vir., II, 483 ; Hening, Statutes, III, 123. 

46 Hening, Statutes, V, 438. 

47 Hening, Statutes, V, 437, 438; VI, 91; VIII, 142. 



58 IMPORT AND EXPORT DUTIES 

attempted to justify the use of export duties, both for 
revenue and for encouragement to certain home industries. 
Although export duties were imposed principally upon 
tobacco, lumber, and skins and furs by the colonial assem- 
blies, they were occasionally levied upon other commod- 
ities.^^ 

48 Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Plymouth imposed export 
duties on fish (Batehellor, Laws of N. H., I, 491; Plymouth Col. 
E,ec., XI, 131, 206, 228) ; Massachusetts, Maryland and Virginia on 
meat (Hening, Statutes, II, 21) ; Bacon, Laws of Maryland, 1694, 
ch. 23; 1704, ch. 27; 1723, ch. 11; Massachusetts, New York and 
New Jersey on wheat (Col. Laws of N. Y., I, 165; Allinson, Acts 
of Assembly of N. J., 17, 72) ; Maryland and Plymouth on pitch and 
tar (Plymouth Col. Records, XI, 132; Bacon, Laws of Maryland, 
1695, ch. 24; 1696, ch. 9) ; Virginia on iron and wool (Hening, Stat- 
utes, II, 115; III, 63); Plymouth on oysters and iron (Plymouth 
Colony Records, XI, 132). 



CHAPTER III 
BOUNTIES, INSPECTION LAWS AND EMBARGOES 

BOUNTIES. 

The policy of increasing trade and commerce in colonial 
products took two general forms. The first of these was 
by means of a bounty — usually given for the production 
of articles of commerce. The result which was usually 
expected from a bounty was the increased production and 
subsequent exportation of certain goods to England or 
elsewhere. The second form of aid to trade was the regu- 
lation or inspection of commodities for export. 

Following the precedent of England, bounties were 
granted in all the colonies except Delaware. Those of the 
New England colonies, and Virginia and South Carolina 
are especially worthy of note. The bounties were chiefly 
of two kinds : ^ those granted as an aid to the production 
of some commodity, and those granted as an aid to their 
exportation. The tendency was toward the former 
method. 

1 "Aside from the usual method of granting pecuniary bounties 
proportional to the amount of the product, prizes were offered for 
the first or the best produced; taxes were remitted to manufacturers; 
monopolies of the market were given for limited times; lands were 
granted; bills of credit and loans were issued to the projectors of 
mills; producers were exempted from military duty; certain articles 
were either made receivable for taxes or were constituted general 
legal tender; and in many cases the declared purpose was to pro- 
mote a domestic production. The branches of industry thus helped 
by the colonial government were not only those engaged in the pro- 
duction of raw materials and naval supplies, but also manufactures, 
as of salt, powder, fire-arms, iron, linens, cottons, and woolens." 
Amer. Hist. Assn., Ill, 470, 471. 

59 



60 BOUNTIES, INSPECTION LAWS, EMBAEGOES 

Bounties for Production. The bounties granted by the 
several colonies to encourage the production of certain 
commodities covered a large list of articles, especially 
hemp and flax, and their manufacture. The northern and 
middle colonies restricted their bounty legislation almost 
exclusively to these two articles; the southern colonies 
(i. e., Virginia and South Carolina) granted bounties for 
production on a much more numerous group of com- 
modities. Agriculture constituted the chief means of live- 
lihood to the colonists, although in New England owing to 
climate and the nature of the soil, greater emphasis must 
be placed upon lumbering, ship-building, trading and fish- 
ing. In the northern colonies we find a greater degree 
and variety of household manufactures than in the south- 
ern colonies, and this in part accounts for the compara- 
tively numerous bounties in the former colonies for the 
manufacture of linen and sail-cloth. 

The Governors not infrequently urged the colonial 
assemblies to grant bounties on those products which 
would furnish a means to pay the balances due to Eng- 
land for her manufactured articles, and yet would not 
compete with the commodities produced in England.^ A 
fair illustration, perhaps, is found in an address by the 
Lieutenant-Governor of Pennsylvania in 1739 to the 
Assembly. He states that ''both my Duty and Inclina- 
tion call upon me to recommend such things to you as I 
think most likely to advance the Prosperity of this 
Province. The soil of many parts of it is productive of 
Hemp and Flax, and there is Wood in abundance for 
making Pot- Ash. There seems, therefore, to be wanting 
nothing but a due encouragement from the Legislature, to 
engage the Attention of the Inhabitants to the Improve- 

2 Votes of the Assembly of Pa., Ill, 6, 7, 128, 129; Journal of the 
Council of N. Y., II, 1540, 1541; N. J. Archives, 1st series, IX, 491; 
XXIV, 542, 555. 



fl 



BOUNTIES, INSPECTION LAWS, EMBARGOES 61 

ment of these valuable Commodities — Valuable, as they 
will furnish your Merchants with a Remittance for the 
Manufactures imported from Great Britain; and conse- 
quently make Gold in some degree current here, as well as 
set reasonable Bounds to the course of Exchange. And 
the more Valuable, as they do not interfere with the 
Product of your Mother Country, but will be of imme- 
diate Advantage to it. . . . " ^ We must not conclude, 
however, that this was the only, or even the usual method 
of securing the bounty. Petitions were sometimes sent 
in praying for a bounty.* 

Bounties were granted for the production of hemp and 
flax (especially the former) by most of the colonies.'^ 
With the exception of Virginia and Maryland, however, 
these bounties were not granted until the first few decades 
of the eighteenth century, and the number of grants show 
a decided falling off towards the Revolution. Suitable 
provisions were enacted in the way of inspection to insure 
the quality of hemp or flax which was produced. In- 
spectors were either specially appointed, or a justice was 
given the duty to see that the hemp was ** water-rotted, 
w^ell-cured and clean-dressed," as provided, for example, in 
the Massachusetts act of 1725.® The rates varied not only 
in different colonies, but even in the same colony at 

3 Pa. Archives, 4th series, I, 674 ; Votes of the Assembly of Pa., 
Ill, 324. 

4N. H. Town Papers, IX, 709-712; Votes of the Assembly of Pa., 
231, 232. 

5 Among the earlier acts granting bounties on hemp or flax ( or 
both) see Watkins, Digest of the Laws of Ga., 156; Bacon, Laws 
of Md., 1671, ch. 20; Acts and Resolves of Mass., I, 473; AUinson, 
Acts of the Assembly of N. J., 281; Pa. Statutes at Large, III, 314; 
Acts and Laws of His Majesty's Colony of P. I., 115; Cooper Stat- 
utes of S. C, III, 436; Hening, Statutes of Virginia, I, 469. 

« Acts and Resolves, II, 362. Pennsylvania had omitted the re- 
quirement of "water-rotted" from the act of 1722, and a few years 
later was compelled to add such a provision. — Statutes at Large, III, 
314; IV, 30, 68. 



62 BOUNTIES, INSPECTION LAWS, EMBARGOES 

different times, a fact which may be explained in part by 
the depreciation of the currency in the colonies, and also 
by the insufficient encouragement offered by some of the 
earlier acts. A cross-section in the earlier decades of the 
eighteenth century will give us a good view of these dif- 
ferences. In New Hampshire there was the exceedingly 
high duty of 12d. per pound granted for three years by 
act of 1719. The hemp was received at the treasury for 
taxes, an arrangement which was not at all uncommon for 
commodities whether there was a bounty on them or not.^ 
Massachusetts had granted a bounty of 9s. 4d. per 112 
pounds in 1715, and doubled the rate three years later.^ 
Rhode Island provided, in 1721, a bounty of 6d. per 
pound.^ In Pennsylvania in 1722 it was Id. per pound ; ^^ 
in Maryland, a year later, it was fixed at fifty pounds of 
tobacco per hundredweight ; ^^ in Virginia, the rate for 
exportation (not production alone) in 1722 was 4s. per 
hundredweight ; ^^ and in South Carolina, the rate during 
the same year was 8s. 4d. per hundredweight.^^ 

We must not conclude that the bounties on hemp and 
flax were always successful. Such was by no means the 
case.^* The comparatively high bounties offered by Eng- 
land on the importation of hemp from the colonies were 
a failure. Only small quantities were shipped to Eng- 
land. From returns of the custom house sent to the Board 
of Trade, 316 hundredweight of hemp had been imported 

7 Acts and Laws of N. H. (1726), 143; Weeden, Economic and 
Social History of New England, 203, 314, 325, 328, 332, 479, 798, 
etc. 

8 Acts and Resolves, II, 28, 102. 

»Acts and Laws of His Majesty's Colony of R. I. (1730), 149. 

10 Pa. Statutes at Large, III, 314. 

11 A Compleat Collection of Laws of Md., 254. 
i2Hening, Statutes, IV, 96. 

13 Cooper, Statutes, III, 184. 

14 Journal of the Council of N. Y., II, 1540. 



BOUNTIES, INSPECTION LAWS, EMBARGOES 63 

between 1712 and 1729,^^ It is impossible to gauge the 
amount of hemp which was produced, though not exported, 
but there are indications tJiat it was an article of some 
importance in several of the colonies.^^ Colonial records 
show us in some instances the amount of bounty that was 
paid upon hemp which was duly inspected. In Pennsyl- 
vania, from March 5, 1729, to January 26, 1730, the 
bounty was paid upon 31,251 pounds of hemp; from 
March 3, 1730, to July 2, 1731, upon 17,266 pounds, and 
smaller amounts about this period.^"^ Furthermore, the 
importance of the domestic manufactures coupled with the 
fact that the spinning-wheel, the loom, and the hand card 
were to be found in most of the homes of the northern 
colonies give us good evidence of the production of hemp 
and flax.^^ Evidently these had to be produced practically 
in the American colonies, for England was a steady con- 
sumer of Ireland's output^^ 

Nor was the incentive lacking to encourage such do- 
mestic manufacture. Necessity lay back of the movement; 
bounties tended to encourage it. Societies were also 
formed to aid these industries, particularly during the 
last few decades prior to the Revolution. Virginia, in 
1682, had passed a law encouraging the linen and woolen 
manufactures, because ^'it might be of some use,'' as the 
Governor expressed it, but it was repealed before its time 
limit on account of the heavy burden which it imposed, 

15 Lord, Industrial Experiments in America, 83, 86, appendix B. 

16 Journal of the Council of N. Y., I, 661. 

17 Votes of the Assembly, III, 39, 57, 64, 91, 104, 119, 159, etc. 
See Weeden, Economic and Social History of New Eng., II, 496; 

Bishop, passim. 

18 Bruce, Econ. History, II, 458 for Virginia ; Bishop, History of 
American Manufactures, I, 336, et seq.; N. Y. Col. Doc, V, 591 et 
seq.; Macpherson, Annals of Commerce, III. pp. 49, 159, 162. 

19 Cf. N. Y. Col. Doc., V, 617. 



64 BOUNTIES, INSPECTION LAWS, EMBARGOES 

and the losses incurred in inspection.^^ The southern 
colonies, with the exception of Virginia, did not grant 
general bounties on these manufactures until the decade 
before the Revolution. The situation in the northern colo- 
nies was different. Massachusetts was particularly active, 
her first bounty dating from October 7, 1640, when a 
bounty of 3d. per shilling's worth of linen, woolen, and 
cotton cloth was offered.^^ In 1722 bounties were offered 
for canvas and linen made in the province. ^^ That colony 
again granted a bounty of £1500 for the manufacture of 
linen in 1753.^^ Connecticut was not far behind Massa- 
chusetts in these efforts to encourage home manufac- 
tures ; ^* while Rhode Island, in 1751, after granting a 
bounty of one-third the appraised value on cloth manu- 
factured from wool or flax, repealed the law on the ground 
that ^4t may draw the displeasure of Great Britain upon 
us, as it will interfere with their most favorite manu- 
factory, while that on flax, and the fisheries, have been 
already tried and not been found beneficial. " ^^ 

The increasing activity of the colonies in these industries 
during the decade prior to the Revolution was not con- 
fined to the northern colonies. The opposition of the 
colonists to the more effective enforcement of the colonial 
system led them to develop their own resources more 
energetically than heretofore. Non-importation agree- 
ments were agreed to; societies offered premiums for 
homespun articles; the colonies in several instances offered 

20 Bruce, Econ. History of Vir., II, 456, 457; Hening, Statutes, II, 
503; III, 16, 121, 293. 

21 Kecords of the Colony of Mass. Bay, I, 303 ; Bagnall, Textile 
Industries, 4, 5. Cf. order of 1655 in Whitmore, Col. Laws of Mass. 
(1887), 141. 

22 Acts and Resolves of Mass., II, 241, 242. 

23 Tlie purpose of this bounty is set forth in Bagnall, op. cit., 28 
et seq. 

24 Public Rec. of Conn., VII, 512. 

25 Records of R. I., V, 319. 



BOUNTIES, INSPECTION LAWS, EMBARGOES 65 

bounties or granted monopolies.^^ Maryland, in 1765, 
provided that each county court should pay out eight 
thousand pounds of tobacco annually in prize money for 
the best manufactured pieces of linen.^^ South Carolina, 
in 1770, provided for a five-year term a bounty of £30 
for every hundred pounds' value of ''good and merchant- 
able linens and thread," made in the province.^^ 

Of all the commodities from which much was expected 
at the beginning, silk w^as perhaps one of the most prom- 
inent. Bounties upon its production were offered by Con- 
necticut, New Jersey, South Carolina, Georgia and Vir- 
ginia, and Governors in other provinces urged the 
assembly to provide bounties for raising silk as a suitable 
commodity to send to England.^^ That the climatic con- 
ditions and the labor problem for the successful establish- 
ment of such an industry were not realized, is apparent 
from the records ; because it was a new and perhaps risky 
undertaking, bounties were to be offered. 

With the exception of Virginia, the bounty legislation 
for the production of silk is limited to the middle of the 
eighteenth century. The early attempts of Virginia to 
encourage the cultivation of silk rest upon the desire to 
secure a diversity of commodities. A special enactment 
required owners of land to plant ten mulberry trees for 
every hundred acres of land, but the act was repealed in 
1659, for it was found that the results were not so advan- 
tageous to the province as had been anticipated.^^ Mean- 

26 Bagnall, Textile Industries, 37-60, cites associations that were 
formed in the northern colonies to encourage these manufactures. 

27 Cf. also Bacon, Laws of Md., 1731, ch. 3; Laws of Md. (1787), 
eh. 6, session of 1765. 

28 Cooper, Statutes, IV, 316. 

29 Pa. Archives, 4th series, I, 428, 475, 545. 

soHening, Statutes of Virginia, I, 420, 520. Reenacted in 1662, 
owing to the low value of the tobacco crop and the attempt to pro- 
duce a greater variety of commodities. — Ibid, II, 121. 



66 BOUNTIES, INSPECTION LAWS, EMBARGOES 

while, bounties had been offered, but without the expected 
results, and the assembly finally offered ten thousand 
pounds of tobacco for every fifty pounds of silk produced 
in the province. The low stage of the tobacco culture at 
this time tended to encourage the silk industry, and some 
silk was produced. Governor Berkeley, writing to the 
Lords of Trade in 1671, stated that ''of late we have be- 
gun to make silk and so many mulberry trees are planted, 
that if we had skilful men from Naples or Sicily to teach 
us the art of making it, in less than half an age, we should 
make as much silk in a year as England did yearly expend 
three-score years since. ' ' ^^ So long, however, as the tobac- 
co culture furnished any profit, the indifference to the silk 
industry remained.^^ Connecticut provided a bounty in 
1734 upon articles made from silk produced in the prov- 
ince, but it is doubtful whether it had any effect, although 
attempts were made to revive the act after its expira- 
tion.^^ New Jersey was the only other northern colony in 
which bounties were offered for silk. Upon the recom- 
mendation of Governor Franklin, that colony in 1765 pro- 
vided for the planting of mulberry trees and the produc- 
tion of raw silk.^* The production of silk in the colonies 
of South Carolina ^^ and Georgia was more successful, 

31 Chalmers, Political Annals, I, 346. 

32 Bruce, Econ. History of Virginia, I, 365-370, 396-400; Hening, 
Statutes of Virginia, I, 469, 487, 521; II, 121, 199, 242, 272. 

33 Public Rec. of Conn., VII, 494, 495 ; Bagnall, Textile Industries, 
23, 61; Bishop, History of Manufactures, I, 360. The articles for 
which bounties were granted included: sewing silk, Is. 6d. per ounce; 
silk stockings weighing four ounces, 7s. 6d.; silk "stuff," Is. per 
yard, — and where the * Varp is all silk," 2s. 3d. ; silk, half yard wide, 
according to weight, 3s. 9d. ; 6s., 9s. per yard. 

34 Allinson, Acts of the Assembly of N. J., 281; Archives of N. J., 
1st series, XXIV, 542, 543; IX, 491. 

35 In 1736 a bounty of 20s. was granted for every pound of silk 
produced, and 10s. for every additional pound above ten. — Cooper, 
Statutes, III, 436, 613. An act of this colony in 1744 empowered 
commissioners to purchase balls of silk, made in the colony, at a spec- 



BOUNTIES, INSPECTION LAWS, EMBARGOES 67 

especially in the latter, yet even here only small quantities 
were produced and exported. Moreover, the bounties in 
both colonies must have constituted only a secondary con- 
sideration, other factors of moment being the activities of 
the home government and of private societies, — and in 
Georgia the trustees themselves.^^ In the latter colony, 
indeed, it was anticipated that the culture of the silk- 
worm would prove a very profitable undertaking, yet her 
efforts ended almost in total failure. Almost everything 
was done which at the time it was believed would encour- 
*age the silk industry in Georgia. Filatures were estab- 
lished, experts employed, machines, trees, seed and silk- 
worm eggs furnished, and bounties were offered at an 
expense to the proprietors, up to the time of the surren- 
der of their charter, of nearly £1500.^'^ In 1755, the 
Council ordered a bounty of 3s. to be paid for every pound 
of cocoons raised in the province and brought to the public 
filature in Savannah. Some results were secured, for 
five months later the Council ordered the payment of 
£70, while larger amounts were subsequently paid out.^^ 

ified rate per pound or bushel. In 1747-8 eight boxes of raw silk, 
valued at £228 sterling were exported from South Carolina. — Car- 
roll, Historical Collections of S. C, III, 237. See also table of im- 
ports and exports from 1731 to 1755, ibid, 272, 

36 Col. Rec. of Ga., VI, 324. 

37 Even the deputies to the early assemblies had to have a hun- 
dred mulberry trees planted and properly fenced upon every fifty 
acres which they owned, and after 1753 such representatives had to 
have in their family one person instructed in the art of reeling silk, 
and in addition had to produce fifteen pounds of silk for every fifty 
acres of their land. These provisions were, of course, not the only 
qualifications for a representative. — Col. Rec. of Ga., VI, 181, 320, 
323, 325, 390, 407; Jones, Hist, of Ga., I, 433, 434; Bishop, Hist, of 
Manuf., I, 357. 

38 Col. Rec. of Ga., VII, 114, 208, 244, 803. The bounties were 
subsequently reduced to 2s. 3d. and later to Is. 6d. per pound. Gov- 
ernor Wright gives a good account of the condition of the silk indus- 
try in Georgia in a letter to the Earl of Hillsborough, July 1, 1768. 
— Cited in Jones, op. cit., II, 75-78. 



68 BOUNTIES, INSPECTION LAWS, EMBARGOES 

By the time of the Eevolution, however, the filature had 
fallen into disuse, and the industry had practically died 
out in Georgia. In general, the attempts to establish a 
silk industry in the colonies were a sacrifice to the prin- 
ciples of the colonial system, though at the time many 
believed that this industry could be made profitable upon 
due encouragement. In fact, the silk which was actually 
sent to England was frequently commended for its 
quality.^^ 

Of provisions, wheat, flour and salt, received bounties at 
one time or another in several of the colonies. Wheat was 
one of the staples of the middle colonies.^^ Massachusetts 
and South Carolina both granted bounties in attempts to 
encourage its production, and especially its conversion 
into flour. In the former province a bounty was granted 
by the same act upon wheat, at 8d. per bushel, and upon 
flour from wheat produced in the province, at 8d. per 
hundredweight. The flour was intended for home con- 
sumption.*^ In South Carolina an unsuccessful attempt 
was made in 1694 to encourage the production of wheat; 
later efforts were more successful and it was deemed 
expedient to grant (1744) a bounty of 2s. 6d. per hundred- 
weight on flour sold in Charleston, made from wheat 
raised in the colony. In 1771 the bounty on flour was 
made 10s. per hundredweight, '^ equal in quality and good- 
ness to the best flour which is made in and imported from 
any of the Northern Colonies."*^ The bounty on salt, 

39 Col. Rec. of Ga., VII, 270; Bruce, Econ. History of Vir., I, 370; 
Bishop, History of Manufactures, I, 357. 

40 N. Y. Col. Doc, VI, 19. 

41 Acts and Resolves of Mass., IV, 527. 

42 Cooper, Statutes, III, 613; IV, 327; Trott, Laws of the Prov- 
ince of S. C, 34. Virginia in 1658, granted an export bounty of 
10,000 pounds of tobacco upon £500 worth of wheat produced in the 
colony (its value being fixed at 5s. per bushel). The act was re- 
pealed shortly afterward; provision was also made for raising wheat 
whereby every tithable person was permitted to plant one acre in 



BOUNTIES, INSPECTION LAWS, EMBARGOES 69 

which became so common during the Revolution, was 
granted by Virginia and South Carolina.^^ This article, 
so essential to the fishing industry of New England, was 
one of the few which could be imported from Europe or 
a foreign port without passing through an English port, 
as provided by the act of Parliament in 1663.** The 
colonies depended upon foreign trade for this necessary 
supply, and the ordinary method of increasing the supply 
was not by a bounty but by exemption from import 
duties,*^ and even the grant of a short-term monopoly to 
individuals within the province.*^ 

It was unusual to grant bounties to encourage ship- 
building. It was an important industry, particularly in 
New England, and complaints even reached Parliament 

wheat in place of two acres of Indian corn. There is evidence that 
this provision was carried out. — Hening, Statutes, I, 469; II, 123; 
Bruce, Econ. History of Virginia, I, 380. Georgia also provided a 
bounty on the production of wheat. — Watkins, Digest of the Laws 
of Georgia, 156. 

43 Virginia hoped to make it a staple article by providing a bounty 
of 10,000 lbs. of tobacco for 800 bus. of salt produced. — Hening, 
Statutes, II, 38. South Carolina encouraged its production in 1694, 
and again in 1725. At the latter date the bounty was 12d. per 
bushel. The sole right of making salt was given to William Melli- 
champ, on condition that he should sell the salt at a rate not ex- 
ceeding 10s. per bushel. — Trott, Laws of S. C, 34; Cooper, Statutes 
of S. C, III, 247. 

4* 15 Chas., II, c. 7. 

45 Ante under import duties. Votes of Assembly of Pa., Ill, 6. 

46 An occasional bounty was granted upon other articles which it 
was anticipated would become staple commodities. South Carolina 
granted a bounty on indigo and wine in 1694; and upon wine and 
olive oil in 1744. In the latter act, the bounty on wine was to be £4 
per pipe produced in the colony, although the first pipe was to receive 
a bounty of £100; on olive oil the bounty was £1 per gallon. — (Trott, 
Laws of S. C, 34; Cooper, Statutes, III, 615). Virginia granted a 
bounty on woolen goods in 1682 amounting to five pounds of to- 
bacco for every yard of cloth. (Hening, Statutes, 121, 242.) Rhode 
Island had granted bounties on woolen cloth, whale bone, whale oil 
and codfish in 1744 and again in 1751. At the latter date, the boun- 
ties were as follows: 4s. per barrel of whale oil; Is. per pound of 



70 BOUNTIES, INSPECTION LAWS, EMBARGOES 

from the shipbuilders on the Thames of the effect of 
colonial competition.*"^ The southern colonies built com- 
paratively an insignificant amount of tonnage for the for- 
eign trade, most of the ships trading there being owned 
and built by the northern colonists or by the English. 
The attempts of Virginia and South Carolina, therefore, 
in granting bounties to encourage shipbuilding, under ad- 
verse economic conditions, are indicative of a desire to 
encourage their own navigation interests. Ordinarily, this 
result was sought by exempting vessels owned or built 
within the colony from tonnage and impost duties, in 
whole or in part. The provisions of the Virginia act met 
with a small measure of success for bounties were actu- 
ally paid. In 1661 a bounty of fifty pounds of tobacco 
was granted for every ton of a vessel built in the colony 
and capable of making a sea voyage. Subsequent legis- 
lation increased the bounty to a hundred pounds of tobacco 
per ton if the ship was between fifty and a hundred tons, 
and two hundred pounds of tobacco if the ship exceeded 
that size. Berkeley, in a report sent in 1671, erroneously 
held that only two vessels were owned in Virginia, and 
even these were not built there.*^ South Carolina in 1751 
appropriated one-fifth of the revenues of an impost as a 
bounty for building ships in the province and as an en- 
couragement for shipwrights and caulkers to settle there. 
Proving inadequate, the bounty provision was repealed, 
and no further attempts were made at bounty legisla- 

whale bone; 2s. 6d. per quintal of codfish. It was repealed the same 
year because the bounty on wool interfered with England's woolen in- 
dustry and might "draw the displeasure of Great Britain upon us." 
(Rec. of R. I., V, 100, 318, 319. Arnold, History of R. I., II, 103, 
145, 179; Corres. of the Gov. of R. L, I, 64.) 

47 Child, Discourse of Trade; N. Y. Col. Doc, III, 263; V, 59; VI, 
207, 511; Votes of Assembly of Pa., Ill, 7. 

48Hening, Statutes, II, 122, 178, 204, 242, 516; Bruce, Economic 
History of Virginia, II, 434-439. 



BOUNTIES, INSPECTION LAWS, EMBARGOES 71 

tion.*® Other colonies also made efforts to encourage 
shipbuilding directly, but these did not materialize.^® 
In all probability the bounty legislation alone to encourage 
shipbuilding in the southern colonies could not have suc- 
ceeded. There was not such a necessity for the southern 
planter to seek a market for his goods, as was the case in 
the northern colonies. British legislation had established 
certain markets for the planter. Moreover, the nature of 
the soil, the natural resources, and the character of the 
people themselves were all contributory causes. 

Boitnties for Exportation. The bounties on goods pro- 
duced in the colonies were much more numerous than upon 
those produced expressly for exportation. The bounties 
granted for articles exported attempted to encourage for- 
eign trade directly; in many instances the bounties for 
production had that effect indirectly.^^ The export boun- 
ties were granted almost exclusively by the three south- 
ern colonies of Virginia, North Carolina and South Caro- 
lina and included hemp, flax, tar, pot and pearl ashes, 
saltpetre, indigo, cotton and ginger. Of this list, only 
hemp and tar were naval stores, which England was so 
anxious to secure from the colonies during the earlier 
part of the eighteenth century. She granted bounties 
upon naval stores; reduced or removed duties upon their 
importation from the colonies; restricted their market 
and reserved certain timber to herself. The colonial gov- 
ernments, however, did not reciprocate to any extent by 
means of bounties upon naval stores exported from their 
bounds. Hemp received the most attention, and boun- 
ties for exportation were provided in Virginia, North 
Carolina and South Carolina. Virginia provided a 

40 Cooper, Statutes, III, 742; IV, 10. 

50 Journals of the Council of N. Y., I, 661, 731 ; N. J. Archives, Ist 
series, XIII, 433, 463. 

81 See for example. Cooper, Statutes of South Carolina, III, 184. 



72 BOUNTIES, INSPECTION LAWS, EMBARGOES 

bounty of 4s. current money per hundredweight in 1722, 
and a further bounty of 2s. in 1745.^^ South Carolina 
provided export bounties on hemp and flax in 1744. On 
hemp the bounty amounted to 8s. and on flax to lOs.^^ 
North Carolina, in 1764, also provided an export bounty 
on hemp and flax at 16s. 8d. per 112 pounds for hemp 
and 13s. 4d. for flax. Tar was the only other naval store 
upon which an export bounty was granted. Shortly after 
the bounty granted by Parliament upon tar, pitch, tur- 
pentine and rosin,^^ New Hampshire offered a bounty 
upon the exportation of tar made in that province. 
Seven years previously, the Earl of Bellomont had written 
that tar had been made in that province. He computed 
how much tar could be made and even asserted that New 
Hampshire and New York could provide enough naval 
stores to pay for the manufactures of England.^^ Vir- 
ginia was the only other colony which had granted an 
export bounty on tar,^^ in the same act providing the 
bounty on hemp. As an effective measure, the colonial 
export bounties upon hemp and tar were practically fail- 
ures, even with the additional import bounties granted 
by Parliament.^'^ The hemp which was produced, even 
with the aid of bounties on production, could not provide 

52Hening, Statutes, IV, 96; VI, 144; VIII, 363. The act of 1745 
limited the amount to be paid out under its provisions to £4,000. — 
Ibid, V, 357. 

53 Cooper, Statutes, III, 615. The act granting a bounty on the 
production of hemp, passed in 1722, was repealed by this act. 

54 3 and 4 Anne, c. 10, sec. 11. 

55 N. H. Province Papers, II, 348, 349; N. Y. Col. Doc, IV, 668 
et seq. 

56Hening, Statutes, IV, 96. 

57 Lord, Industrial Experiments, 85. "Macpherson, who gives sta- 
tistics of the exportation of naval stores from Carolina, where alone 
hemp seemed to thrive, for a considerable number of years, men- 
tions no hemp until the year 1769, in which 290,095 lbs. were sent 
over. I find no mention of exportation from any other colony. 
. . ." Cf. Belknap, Hist, of N. H., Ill, 219. 



BOUNTIES, INSPECTION LAWS, EMBARGOES 73 

for the home industries, nor did the colonists have any- 
adequate knowledge of the proper soil or the best methods 
for its production on a large scale. 

A word or two must be added about the export bounties 
occasionally offered by colonial legislatures. The same 
act which granted bounties on hemp and flax in South 
Carolina also provided them for cotton, ginger and indigo. 
The bounty on ''neat, well cleared and merchantable" 
cotton w^as 3d. per pound; on merchantable ginger 5s. 
per hundredweight; and on ''neat and merchantable" 
indigo Is. per pound. Neither cotton nor ginger were 
of any importance during the colonial period, though 
seven bags of the former, valued at £25 sterling, were 
exported from South Carolina in 1748.^^ Indigo, however, 
fared differently. It had been produced in South Caro- 
lina in the seventeenth century, but had declined and was 
reintroduced about 1741. Within a comparatively few 
years it became the second staple of South Carolina. Part 
of the success in its cultivation must be attributed to the 
bounty, which was taken off two years after it had gone 
into effect, because it was no longer needed. Subsequently 
Parliament granted a bounty, and as indigo was an enu- 
merated commodity, it was exported to England in large 
quantities.^^ Pot and pearl ashes also received attention 
from North Carolina and South' Carolina, by way of 
export bounties. The latter province granted a bounty 
on potashes in 1707, and again in 1712, at which time the 
bounty was 40s. per ton. North Carolina provided a 
bounty on pot and pearl ashes in 1764, amounting to 8s. 

58 Carroll, Historical Collections of S. C, II, 235. 

59 Cooper, Statutes of S. C, III, 671 ; Carroll, Historical Collec- 
tions, II, 235; Ramsay, History of S. C, II, 209; McCrady, History 
of S. C, II, 267-270, 389, 487, 488; Bishop, History of Manufactures, 
I, 348, 349, N. Y. Col. Doc, V, 610. Georgia also produced large 
quantities of indigo, but did not offer bounties for it. 



74 BOUNTIES, INSPECTION LAWS, EMBARGOES 

and 15s. per hundredweight respectively.^^ Pennsyl- 
vania also had a bounty of two pence per gallon on '* proof 
spirits" distilled in the province and exported ''out to 
sea.^^i 

The administration of these acts was somewhat differ- 
ent from that of acts granting bounties on the production 
of commodities. In the latter case, certificates were re- 
quired from a county justice or other officer, stating that 
the articles were actually produced within the colony by 
the person claiming the bounty. In the former case, the 
person could claim the bounty only after having duly 
exported the commodities and received a certificate from 
the proper official at the port from which they were 
shipped. 

All of the colonies granted bounties at one time or 
another.^^ The usual method was upon the production of 
commodities, yet Virginia, North Carolina and South Caro- 
lina, especially the latter, also emphasized bounties on 
the exportation of certain commodities. Many of the 
bounties were, as we have seen, beneficial, but to what 
extent, it is impossible, perhaps even fruitless to deter- 
mine. Heretofore the Parliamentary bounty acts have 
been emphasized; yet we must not overlook the fact that 
the colonies were also active in encouraging the production 
and exportation of raw materials of commerce. 

INSPECTION REGULATIONS. 

The General Inspection Policy in Outline. — The second 
means by which the trade of the colonies was regulated or 

60 Cooper, Statutes of S. C, II, 307, 385; State Rec. of N. C, 
XXIII, 923 ; Carroll, Historical Collections, II, 235. N. Y. Col. Doc, 
V, 610. The act of 1707 of South Carolina also granted a bounty 
on saltpetre. 

«i Pa. Statutes at Large, III, 415. 

62 Concerning Delaware, see note 4, page 18. 



BOUNTIES, INSPECTION LAWS, EMBARGOES 75 

encouraged is to be found in the inspection laws (of which 
there were several hundred) enacted in the several colo- 
nies. The colonies usually provided for the inspection of 
their staple articles for export, while occasional provision 
was made for the inspection of other articles.^^ The chief 
purpose of these laws was to raise or preserve the reputa- 
tion of the commodities in the foreign market, for it was 
not at all uncommon that '^deceit and fraud" were prac- 
ticed as to the quality or quantity of the articles exported.^* 

The inspection laws become more detailed as a rule as 
we approach the Revolution, — and even more so from the 
Revolution to the adoption of the federal Constitution. 
The laws were quite uniform to the extent that they re- 
quired the articles to be examined by officials provided for 
in the acts. They also prescribed the fees which the in- 
spectors were to receive in the performance of their duties. 
Naturally, there were radical differences of detail as to 
the amount of the fee, the extent of the inspector's duty,^^ 
and the articles inspected. 

The only article (besides lumber), the inspection of 
which was provided for by law in each of the colonies, 
was meat, i. e., beef and pork. The packer, as the in- 
spector of beef and pork was ordinarily designated, was 
required under oath to see that these commodities were 
properly packed. None could be exported until the in- 
spection had taken place. Even when imported into a 
colony for reexportation or for sale, the beef and pork 

63 Acts and Resolves of Mass., Ill, 12 ; Pa. Statutes, III, 24 ; Hen- 
ing, Statutes, V, 164; Col. Laws of N. Y., V, 86; Cooper, Statutes of 
S. C, I, 55; Laws of N. H. (1726), 149. 

«4N. Y. Col. Doc., V, 767; Pa. Archives, 4th series, I, 475; Votes 
of the Assembly of Pa., Ill, 185, 195, 324, 325; Journals of the 
Council of N. Y., I, 231; II, 1127, 1308. 

65 In one instance, at least, goods were to be inspected only on 
complaint of the buyer. — State Rec. of N. C, XXIII, 55. 



76 BOUNTIES, INSPECTION LAWS, EMBARGOES 

were frequently repacked.^^ Massachusetts provided for 
the gauging of the casks for beef, pork and other commod- 
ities as early as 1641, and New York had a similar pro- 
vision in 1665. In both cases the cask was to be ''London" 
size, and of well seasoned timber. In the later act, as 
was the general practice, the ganger was to mark the bar- 
rel, as evidence that it had been inspected.®^ 

The inspection of fish was provided for in all of the 
New England colonies, and in New York. The fishing 
industry developed early in the New England colonies, and 
was a factor of economic importance to them throughout 
the colonial period, for it furnished them with a needed 
staple for foreign trade. The administrative provisions 
for the inspection of fish were quite similar to those for 
the inspection of beef and pork.®® 

Timber was inspected at one time or another in every 
colony. The earlier laws usually regulated in detail the 
size and quality of staves exported; later acts added 
shingles, boards, planks and other kinds of lumber. From 
the very beginning the vast resources of the forests fur- 
nished the colonists with a ready and cheap article of 
export, especially for the trade to the West Indies, Spain 
and Portugal.®^ England had admitted it duty free 
early in the eighteenth century and also placed it among 
the enumerated articles.'^^ Pennsylvania and the south- 
ern colonies did not provide inspection laws for timber 
until about the middle of the eighteenth century, although 

«eCol. Laws of N. Y., Ill, 77; Acts and Resolves of Mass., Ill, 
12. 

«7W. H. Whitmore, Col. Laws of Mass. (1887), 16; Col. Laws of 
N. Y., I, 58. 

68 The reinspeetion of fish was provided for, if not exported shortly 
after inspection. Massachusetts also provided a suitable time to dry 
or prepare fish for export. — Public Rec. of Conn., Ill, 417; Acts and 
Resolves of Mass., I, 49; II, 286, 379, 601. 

69 N. Y. Col. Doc, IV, 645, 678, 724, 825, 853. 

70 8 Geo. I, e. 12; 3 and 4 Anne, c. 10. 



BOUNTIES, INSPECTION LAWS, EMBARGOES 77 

it was exported from these colonies prior to that period.^^ 
There is one law on record which specifically provided for 
the inspection of staves, headings and shingles exported 
to the Madeira Islands and the West Indies. Such a pro- 
cedure in the inspection laws was very unusual, even 
though the legislators doubtless knew the markets for 
which the lumber from their province was intended and 
perhaps enacted provisions with that thought in mind/^ 

Flour and bread were regularly inspected by New York, 
New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Maryland. Pennsylvania 
was especially active in the export trade in flour. Un- 
merchantable flour was not permitted to be exported, 
nevertheless this prohibition was not always heeded.'^^ 
The southern colonies began the inspection of these com- 
modities just a few decades before the Revolution.'^^ 

The commodity which received the most detailed regula- 
tion was tobacco. Inspection laws for tobacco were pro 
vided by Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and the 
southern colonies. Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia 
began to secure the inspection of tobacco quite early in 
their colonial existence, but the laws of the last two men- 
tioned colonies are by far the most important and de- 
tailed. Tobacco was the mainstay of Virginia and 
Maryland, and constituted the greatest single export from 
the continental colonies.'^^ Inspectors of tobacco were pro- 
vided by law, and later the southern colonies, except 

71 Bishop, History of Manufactures, I, passim; Carroll, Hist. Coll. 
of S. C, II, 129. 

72 Hening, Statutes of Virginia, VI, 233. 

73 Pa. Archives, 4th series, I, 475. 

74 Hening, Statutes of Virginia, V, 350; State Records of N. C, 
XXIII, 485; Cooper, Statutes of S. C, IV, 327; Watkins, Digest of 
Laws of Ga., 159. 

75 Beer, Commercial Policy of England, 49-52 ; Brock, in 10th 
Census of U. S., volume on "Reports on the Productions of Agricul- 
ture," 212-225. 



78 BOUNTIES, INSPECTION LAWS, EMBARGOES 

Georgia, provided public warehouses to which the tobacco 
was brought for inspection. Bad or ''trashy" tobacco, 
usually defined in the act, wa^ rejected and was not to be 
exported, and in some instances tobacco could not be ex- 
ported in bulk. The cask in which the tobacco was ex- 
ported was also regulated as to size and even quality of 
timber. Masters of vessels were to give oath that the 
tobacco was duly exported and properly inspected. More- 
over, Virginia prohibited the sale or shipment of North 
Carolina tobacco in her territory. '^^ 

The gauging of casks for liquors was commonly prac- 
ticed in the New England and middle colonies, but not 
in the southern colonies. At first they were often made 
''London" size, but subsequently gauging according to 
Gunter's rule became the practice.'^^ The necessity of a 
standard was due to the fraud which could be practiced 
by exporting liquors in smaller casks, and the consequent 
effects of such a violation in foreign markets. 

Naval stores were early subject to inspection in the 
southern colonies; they were also inspected in Massachu- 
setts and Connecticut shortly after the parliamentary 
bounties had been offered upon naval stores.'^^ Governor 
Cornbury, of New York, at the same time informed the 
Assembly that he had been instructed by the Queen to 
recommend suitable acts to make the parliamentary act 
effective, and accordingly a bill was actually drawn up 
to prevent frauds and abuses in the exportation of naval 

76 Col. Ree. of N. C, II, xiv-xvi; Bacon, Laws of Md., 1763, ch. 
18; Hening, Statutes of Vir., II, 445; Bruce, Econ. History of Vir., I, 
304-308; Hawk, History of N. C, II, 234; Mereness, Maryland, 110- 
117. 

77 Col. Laws of N. Y., I, 58; Whitmore, Col. Laws of Mass. (1887), 
16; Batchellor, Laws of N. H., I, 197; Public Rec. of Conn., Ill, 417, 
X, 129; Acts and Resolves of Mass., II, 49; Acts and Laws of His 
Majesty's Colony of R. L (1752), 101. 

78 Acts and Resolves of Mass., II, 49, 573; Public Rec. of Conn., 
V, 3. 



BOUNTIES, INSPECTION LAWS, EMBARGOES 79 

stores to England. "^^ Their exportation was of some im- 
portance in the southern colonies, the bounties proving 
comparatively ineffective in the northern colonies.^® 
Other articles were inspected at various times in some of 
the colonies for the same reasons that the commodities 
already mentioned were inspected; these commodities in- 
cluded butter,^^ flax,^'2 hemp,®^ horses,®* indigo,®^ grain 
and provisions,®^ leather,®"^ malt,®® rice,®^ and sometimes 
even conunodities in general.^® 

The administrative effects of these various inspection 
laws cannot be gauged with any degree of accuracy for 
the policy of inspection as a whole. There was a tendency 
upon the part of planter and merchant, in the case of 
some commodities at least, to mix in the unmerchantable 
or bad portions with the good, or to adulterate articles 
intended for export; and there is evidence to show that 
this practice was carried out to some extent. Experience 

79 Journal of the Council of N. Y., I, 231. 

80 N. Y. Col. Doc, V, 188, 617; Lord, Industrial Experiments, 67-71, 
appendix B; Carroll, Historical Collections of S. C, II, 235; Mc- 
Crady, History of S. C, II, 61; Hawk, History of N. C, II, 270. 

81 State Rec. of N. C, XXIII, 485. 

82 Ibid, XXIII, 639, 790; Col. Laws of N. Y., V, 361; Watkins, 
Digest of the Laws of Ga., 159. 

83 State Rec. of N. C, XXIII, 639, 741, 768, 790; Watkins, Di- 
gest of the Laws of Ga., 159. 

84 Charter to Penn and Laws of Pa., 164. 

85 Cooper, Statutes of S. C, III, 718. 
86Allinson, Acts of the Assembly of N. J., 71, 381. 

87 Col. Laws of N. Y., V, 71; Learning and Spicer, Grants of N. 
J., 117; Hening, Statutes of Vir., Ill, 75; Charter to Penn and Laws 
of Pa., 178; Whitmore, Col. Laws of Mass., 88; Rec. of R. L, IV, 
7; Watkins, Digest of the Laws of Ga., 149. 

88 Acts and Resolves of Mass., II, 447. 

8» State Rec. of N. C, XXIII, 432, 435, 639, 790; Cooper, Stat- 
utes of S. C, III, 497. 

90 State Rec. of N. C, XXIII, 639, 790; Whitmore, Col. Laws of 
Mass., 16; Watkins, Digest of the Laws of Ga., 125; Batchellor, Laws 
of N. H., I, 197. 



80 BOUNTIES, INSPECTION LAWS, EMBARGOES 

occasionally proved the ineffieacy of these laws, where- 
upon an amendment was passed to increase the efficiency 
of the administrative provisions. On the whole, however, 
the inspection laws must have been very beneficial in 
preserving the reputation of the colonial products in for- 
eign markets, though at times individual preferences were 
expressed for the staple from one colony rather than from 
a neighboring colony. The inspectors were under oath to 
perform the duties prescribed in the acts, and at times 
were prohibited from buying the commodities inspected 
by them. Their compensation was upon the fee system, 
which was specifically regulated by law. Finally, they 
were appointed by the Governor and council, justices, 
and infrequently mentioned in the act itself, yet in the 
New England colonies it w^as usual to provide for their 
election in the towns wherever their services would be 
required.®^ 

EMBARGOES. 

Purpose and Extent of Embargoes. The direction of 
commerce by means of inspection laws was but one step 
removed from the absolute prohibition of the export or 
even the import of commodities. The embargo legisla- 
tion of the colonies was regulated by a policy of expe- 
diency. Scarcity, protection to home industries and wars 
were the prime factors which influenced the embargo 
legislation. 

Many of the earlier embargoes were imposed to prevent 
the exportation of provisions. They were uniformly im- 
posed for a short period — usually about three months — 

»i Bruce, Econ. History of Vir., I, 308; Weeden, Social and Eco- 
nomic History of N. Eng., II, 597, 598; Mereness, Maryland, 109, 
114-118, 394; Hutchinson, History of Mass. Bay, II, 400, 401; 
Belknap, History of N. H., Ill, 214; Archives of Md., Proceedings 
of Assembly, 1684-1692, 552, 553; Pa. Archives, 4th series, I, 475, 
674; and the acts providing for inspection. 



BOUNTIES, INSPECTION LAWS, EMBARGOES 81 

and were intended to tide the colony over to the next 
season.^'- Even then, occasional objections are heard 
against these embargoes.^^ The crude state of agriculture 
during the early colonial period, and the lack of efficient 
means of transportation, made essential the imposition of 
embargoes of this character.^* 

Embargoes were also imposed early in the career of 
several colonies to encourage home industries, or to retain 
within the province commodities which it was deemed 
desirable to consume. Such motives, however, are not 
always weU defined in specific acts. We have seen already 
that export duties were occasionally imposed to accom- 
plish approximately the same purpose.®^ The embargo 
policy was deemed essential in several instances for hides 
and skins, for it was considered to be a matter of some 
importance to encourage the establishment of tanneries.^^ 
Virginia enacted several embargoes for hides and skins,*^ 
but all those relating to hides were repealed in 1671 for 
the reason that the benefits which were to have resulted 
failed to materialize.*® The prohibition was again reim- 
posed upon hides and skins, as well as other articles (iron, 
wool, woolfeUs) in 1682 since it ''would be found profitta- 
ble for the setting to work many men, women and chil- 
dren in this country which lye idle for want of employ- 

»2 Public Rec. of Conn., V, 417, 420; IV, 16, 150, 157, 160; for 
an account of the scarcity of provisions in Rhode Island in 1639, see 
Rec. of R. I., I, 98. 

»3 Col. Laws of N. Y., I, 86. 

»4 Virginia regulated the price of com in 1639, and provided that 
it could not be exported if it exceeded that price. The intent was to 
prevent any scarcity in the supply. — Hening, Statutes, I, 227. 

95 Ante, p. 43. 

9« Acts and Resolves of Mass., I, 431; Hening, Statutes of Vir., 
n, 493. 

»7 Hening, Statutes, I, 174, 198; II, 185. 

»8 Hening, Statutes, II, 287 ; Bruce, Econ. History of Vir., II, 480, 
481. 



82 BOUNTIES, INSPECTION LAWS. EMBARGOES 

ment, and some naked for want of such necessaries as 
might be wrought out of the same. . . ." This view 
was doubtless exaggerated, but it shows perhaps the mo- 
tive for attempting to encourage home industry .^^ In 
1662 provision was made for the erection of tanneries 
in each county; provision was made for the employment 
of tanners, curriers and shoemakers; and the price of 
hides and shoes regulated. There is evidence that tanners 
and shoemakers were an element of importance in that col- 
ony.^ Massachusetts began the same policy as early as 
1646, when raw hides and unwrought leather were not 
allowed to be exported. Tanners had their duties pre- 
scribed in 1642:^ Besides the prohibitions on the expor- 
tation of hides and skins to encourage home industry, we 
find an occasional act applying to other commodities. 
About the middle of the 17th century, Virginia also 
placed several embargoes on iron and wool, but the ef- 
forts were unsuccessful in encouraging the former.^ New 
Hampshire placed an embargo upon iron ore in 1719 in 
order to aid the establishment of an iron works.^ Em- 
bargoes were also placed upon grain in one or two instances 
to have it converted into wheat.^ New Jersey in 1694 
placed an embargo upon lumber intended for New York, 
with the view to develop the trade of her own port.^ 

Embargoes were also imposed frequently as a war meas- 
ure, to prevent supplies from reaching the enemies of the 

»» Hening, Statutes, II, 493. 

ilbid., II, 123; Bruce, Econ. History of Vir., II, 476. 

2 W^hitmore, Col. Laws of Mass. (1887), 64, 88, 205; Bolles, In- 
dustrial History, 446, 447. 

3 Bruce, Econ. Hist, of Vir., II, 453 ; Hening, Statutes, I, 488 ; II, 
297, 493. Maryland also placed an embargo on iron and wool in 
1663.— Bacon, Laws of Md., eh. 17. 

4 Laws of N. H. (1726), 139; Belknap, History of N. H., II, 29. 

5 Public Records of Conn., IV, 166. 

« N. Y. Col. Doc, IV, 114; Bishop, History of Manufactures, I, 
68. 



BOUNTIES, INSPECTION LAWS, EMBARGOES 83 

colonies. These embargoes, imposed upon provisions, mu- 
nitions of war, and occasionally naval stores and shipping, 
did not necessarily prohibit all trade; ordinarily it was 
merely the trade with the enemy which was prohibited/ 
When imposed upon shipping the intent seems to have 
been to prevent news of military operations from reach- 
ing the enemy, though at the time of the French and In- 
dian War other factors of more importance were also op- 
erative.^ The home government at times gave instructions 
to impose embargoes to prevent intercourse with the 
enemy, the most important by far occurring at the time 
of the struggle with France for the possession of America.* 
Of all the embargoes, these were the most difficult to en- 
force. The instructions from England were based upon 
the principle that in time of war all commercial inter- 
course with the enemy was to be entirely prohibited.^® 
At the outset of the French and Indian War many of the 
colonies had imposed embargoes on the trade with the 
French ; ^^ the lack of uniformity in the scope and time 
limits of these acts seriously impaired the efficacy of these 
measures, for trade could and actually was carried on with 
the French through neutral West India Ports. In 
response to a circular letter to all the Governors of Amer- 
ica, dated October 9, 1756, instructing them to place an 
embargo on ships, unless supplying British colonies with 
provisions, Governor Hardy of New York attempted to 
prevent all indirect trade with the French, and urged 

7 Col. Rec. of Ga., VIII, 687 ; Maryland, Proceedings of the Council, 
1636-1667, 174. 

8 N. Y. Col. Doc, V, 259. 

9 Rec. of R. I., V, 546; Beer, British Colonial Policy, 75; N. Y. 
Col. Doc, VII, 162, 346, 356; Kimball, Corres. of Pitt with Colonial 
Governors, I, 19, 48; N. J. Archives, 1st series, VIII, pt. ii, 254; 
Col. Rec of Ga., VII, 766; Col. Rec of Pa., VIII, 38. 

10 X. Y. Col. Doc, VIII, 255. 

11 Pa. Archives, 4th Series, II, 362, 363. 



84 BOUNTIES, INSPECTION LAWS, EMBARGOES 

the Governors of the neighboring colonies to do likewise, 
but in this he was unsuccessful.^^ Evasions of the embar- 
goes were by no means infrequent, and protests were heard 
against their extension or enforcement. The Assembly of 
Pennsylvania, in 1757, even considered the three months' 
embargo on shipping to secure seamen for military oper- 
ations, as illegal, and insisted that the embargo should be 
removed immediately to prevent any further distress to 
trade. They asserted that the embargo was ''taken off in 
New England, Maryland and Virginia, and the Continu- 
ance of it here can answer no good Purpose whatsoever.'' 
Governor Denny at once sent the remonstrance to Lord 
Loudoun, at whose instance the embargo had been laid. 
The embargo was removed a few weeks later. ^^ 

Administration of the Embargo Acts. It is essential to 
touch at least upon the method of imposing the embargo. 
The usual method of imposing the embargo was by the leg- 
islative body of the colony; the act fixed the duration of 
the embargo, and the commodities which were affected. 
When, in 1757, the Governor of Pennsylvania had pro- 
claimed an embargo at the instance of Lord Loudoun, 
without first obtaining the consent of the Assembly, it was 
declared to be ''illegally laid."^* In several of the colo- 
nies, the Governor in council was permitted to impose 
embargoes, whenever "necessary" or "expedient." These 
prohibitions were sometimes imposed at a time when the 
Assembly was not in session.^^ 

i2Eec. of R. I., V, 546; N. Y. Col. Doc, VII, 162, 215; Pa. Ar- 
chives, 4th Series, II, 637, 638. 

13 Votes of the Assembly of Pa., IV, 713-715; Pa. Archives, 4th 
series, II, 813, 834. 

14 Votes of the Assembly of Pa., IV, 714. 

15 Col. Rec. of Ga., VII, 766; Public Rec. of Conn., V, 417, 420; 
Hening, Statutes of Vir., IV, 221 ; Toward the end of 1754, instruc- 
tions had been issued to the English naval and military commanders 
to stop "illegal correspondence" and to prevent the "dangerous Prac- 



BOUNTIES, INSPECTION LAWS, EMBARGOES 85 

tices" by which the French were supplied with provisions and warlike 
stores. These instructions were illegal, since war did not formally 
exist at that time. The Earl of Hillsborough later asked the attor- 
ney and solicitor generals for their opinion upon the validity of an 
embargo to be imposed upon the colonies, whereby provisions and 
warlike stores could not be exported except to ports in the British 
dominion. The reply was that no decision covering this case had been 
made, but the Crown had exercised this right in time of actual war 
and might "make preparations which are legal (sic) justifiable by 
the occasion."~N. Y. Col. Doc, VIII, 255; Beer, Br. Col. Policy, 
76, 77. 



CHAPTER IV 

TONNAGE DUTIES 

Purpose of the Tonnage Duties. Thus far w^e have 
discussed the commercial policy from the commodity side 
of colonial commerce. We shall now consider it from the 
point of view of trade or navigation. During the colonial 
period trade was practically symbolical of navigation or 
shipping interests, for inland transportation was compar-. 
atively undeveloped and of minor importance. This 
phase of the commercial policy of the colonies will be 
dealt with as follows: 

1. Tonnage Duties. 

2. Port Regulations. 

The tonnage duties which were among the earliest pro- 
vided by the colonies, were imposed quite generally 
throughout the colonies. New Jersey was probably the 
only colony which did not impose tonnage duties during 
the colonial period.^ 

The chief purpose of the tonnage duties was to provide a 
source of revenue for the defense of the colonies, and sub- 
sequently, for lighthouses and other purposes. Encour- 
agement to shipbuilding and trade were also factors of 

1 There are no indications in the laws of Delaware that a ton- 
nage duty was imposed by that colony. The earlier laws of Penn- 
sylvania, on the subject, referred to ships from Delaware as from 
the "lower counties." See, e. g., Pa. Statutes at Large, II, 384. 
Scharf refers to an act passed in 1706, imposing a duty of a quarter 
of a pound per ton on all vessels (except war vessels) owned by in- 
habitants residing within the river and bay, otherwise the duty was 
one-half pound of powder. — Hist, of Del., I, 129. 

86 



TONNAGE DUTIES 87 

importance, particularly in the New England colonies.^ 
The earlier acts, usually called *' castle duties" or 
''powder money," were imposed to provide revenue for the 
forts of the colonies, and in general the revenue was ap- 
plied to that end until about the middle of the eighteenth 
century. Pirates and the settlers from other colonizing 
powers gave the English colonies sufficient cause for appre- 
hension. The revenue derived from the tonnage duties 
was usually sufficient for the fortifications, and was gen- 
erally kept as a separate fund. The forts at the entrance 
to the harbor were also utilized to see that the navigation 
acts and regulations were properly enforced. 

About the middle of the eighteenth century, it became 
the general practice to use the revenue from tonnage duties 
for lighthouses, and occasionally one or two other specific 
objects (as beacons and buoys, and seamen's hospitals).^ 
At the time the lighthouses were established, it was fre- 
quently found that the revenue was insufficient.* Hence the 
rates were often increased, or money was borrowed and the 
duties were applied to the ultimate extinguishment of the 
debt. Thus Pennsylvania provided a duty of 6d. per ton on 
vessels (with certain exceptions) in 1764, in order to erect a 
lighthouse at Cape Henlopen, and the Commissioners were 
authorized to borrow £5,000, which was ultimately to be 
repaid by the tonnage duties. Two years later another 
£2,000 was borrowed and an additional duty of 6d. per 
ton was imposed to pay off the debt.^ 

2 Cf. Jour, of Council of N. Y., I, 433. 

3 Cooper, Statutes of S. C, II, 610; III, 402. 

4N. H. Province Papers, VII, 9, 10, 70, 71, 280, 281, 288, 296; Col. 
Rec. of Ga., VI, 293; X, 744; Osgood, American Colonies I, 481. 
Public Rec. of Conn., XIV, 191, 216; Rec. of R. I., Ill, 487. 

5 Pa. Statutes at Large, VI, 372, 609-611; VII, 40, 373. The 

Board of Trade commended the motives of the former act, yet urged 

its repeal because it provided a penalty on his Majesty's customs 

I officers clearing out vessels which did not have a certificate showing 

that the duty had been paid. The Board asserted that the act was 



88 TONNAGE DUTIES 

The records do not permit us to ascertain with sufficient 
accuracy the duties which were collected in the several 
colonies.® Nor were the accounts always kept properly. 
Revenue was the chief object of these duties, consistent 
with a due encouragement of trade and shipbuilding by 
means of exemptions, and was perhaps of greater im- 
portance in the southern colonies on account of the few 
exemptions which were provided.*^ 

The early tonnage duties provided generally for pay- 
ment in powder — hence the designation ''powder money." 
Some of the early acts, however, provided for the pay- 
ment of the duties in powder or money at a fixed rate, at 
the option of the master of the vessel. Under such an ar- 
rangement it is only natural that the merchants and ship- 
masters would take advantage of the act, and pay the 
cheapest rate. The date of transition to specie payments 
varied widely in the several colonies, and on occasions, 
the powder duty was insisted upon after specie payment 
had been introduced.® 

Tonnage Duties and English Ships, The same princi- 
ple which we have noted in the duties on English goods 
and slaves was applied to English ships. Naturally, the 

"evidently calculated and must necessarily operate to control a con- 
stitutional officer of the Crown in the execution of those duties which 
the laws of trade and navigation require of him." The Board be- 
lieved that the act went beyond the constitutional authority of the 
colony, since it interfered with the English acts of trade and naviga- 
tion. Nevertheless both acts were allowed to continue. Cf. Journal 
of the Council of N. Y., I, 371, 372. 

« The most complete account of the revenue derived from tonnage 
duties (and even that is inadequate) is in Hill, Tariff Policy, 18-23. 

7 N. Y. Col. Doc, V, 599, 607 ; VII, 908 ; Journal of the Council of 
N. Y., I, 520; Votes of the Assembly of Pa., II, 251, 269, 291; Hill 
Tariff Policy, 23; Ripley, Financial History of Vir., 80, 81; Robin- 
son, History of Taxation in N. H., 66, 67; Carroll, Historical Coll. 
of S. C, II, 225, 226. 

8 Acts and Resolves of Mass., I, 525, 586, 621, 737; Journal of 
the Council of N. Y., II, 1810. 



TONNAGE DUTIES 89 

English merchants complained against these violations of 
the acts of trade and navigation, and the Board of Trade 
in many instances recommended that these acts should be 
rejected. 

Maryland, in 1704, levied a tonnage duty of 3d. per ton 
on vessels trading to that colony, unless built in, or owned 
wholly by the inhabitants of the province. This was one of 
the laws against which the merchants of London made 
complaint to the Board of Trade, trusting that they would 
be ' ' supported in the same freedom and privileges of trade 
with the inhabitants of this or any other colony." The 
act, however, was not disallowed.^ A similar act passed 
by Massachusetts in 1718 was rejected by the Crown, and 
the subsequent acts of that colony exempted English ves- 
sels whenever its own vessels were exempted.^® Other col- 
onies had similar experiences, but these cases are limited 
chiefly to the charter colonies. The tonnage duty of seven 
and a half ounces of plate (or its equivalent in bills of 
credit) imposed by New York in 1716, exempted vessels 
built in the colony or owned by its inhabitants, as well as 
vessels in the coasting trade to Massachusetts, Rhode Is- 
land, Connecticut and New Jersey, when owned by the in- 
habitants of the respective colonies. Objections were 
offered by the Board of Trade, but the Assembly was per- 
mitted to remedy the complaints before final action should 
be taken on the bill, which the Assembly met by exempt- 
ing English vessels. In a report to the Governor, however, 
the Assembly stated that ^* British Vessels, as well as 
others, paid a Duty of Tonnage ... in 1709, which 
continued to be paid without any Objection or Observe 
made on that Act, by the then Board of Trade. . . . 

9 Chalmers, Revolt of the Colonies, I, 387, 388; Md. Archives, Pro- 
ceedings of Assembly, 1704-1706, 360. 

10 Hutchinson, History of Mass., II, 204, 209; Chalmers, Revolt 
of the Colonies, 13, 14; Acts and Resolves of Mass., II, 79, 111, 140. 



90 TONNAGE DUTIES 

That in Virginia, they pay such a Duty, and that British 
shipping in most of the Plantations, are no more than 
others exempted, from paying a Duty according to their 
Tonnage for Powder Money; they will think favourably 
of us, for subjecting them to the same Duty, as their Fel- 
low Subjects paid for the support of his Majesty's Gov- 
ernment, which we were humbly of Opinion, would as well 
justify such an Imposition, as the Support of his Maj- 
esty 's Garrisons and Fortifications. ' ' ^^ 

Colonial legislation subsequent to the first few decades 
of the eighteenth century did not collide much with Eng- 
lish commercial interests along this line.^^ 

Exemptions to Home Shipping. Exemptions for the 
purpose of encouraging shipbuilding, and especially of 
hampering trade as little as practicable were frequently 
provided. The most important of these exemptions were 
granted to the shipping owned or built in the legislating 
colony. This was practically true of the New England 
colonies, where shipbuilding was an important industry.^^ 
A brief summary of the acts exempting home shipping will 
perhaps indicate their extent and significance. 

In New Hampshire, the laws regularly exempted the 
vessels of the province from tonnage duties, with only a 
few exceptions.^* A similar policy was carried out in 
Massachusetts until 1715, after which date coasting and 
fishing vessels paid a duty or tax annually, or for each 

11 Col. Laws of N. Y., I, 898, 1010; Journal of the Council of N. 
Y., I, 433, 435. 

12 Cf. Chalmers, Revolt of the Colonies, II, 32-34, 120. 

13 Journal of the Council of N. Y., I, 433, 435 ; Pa. Archives, 4th 
series, II, 903, 904; Votes of the Assembly of Pa., V, 9, 10; N. H. 
Province Papers, II, 77-84; Weeden, Economic and Social History 
of New Eng., I, 375-378; Bishop, History of Manufactures, I, chaps. 
Ill and IV. 

14 Batchellor, Laws of N. H., I, 490; N. H. Province Papers, IV, 
291, 292, 608, 609; VII, 280. 



TONNAGE DUTIES 91 

clearance. ^^ Connecticut also exempted her own shipping 
from tonnage duties until 1757 at which time provis- 
ion was made for a duty of 6d. on vessels owned by her 
inhabitants when bound to ports beyond the limits of 
Halifax and Philadelphia, and 3d. within those limits. 
Vessels of non-residents were required to pay Is. per ton. 
In 1760, however, that colony again exempted her own ves- 
sels when ^' bound from the port of New Haven west- 
ward," but at the same time provided duties on her ves- 
sels according to the size of the vessel and the port of call. 
Vessels of non-inhabitants paid double the duties. ^^ In 
Rhode Island exemptions were accorded to her own ship- 
ping in 1697, but six years later the exemption amounted 
to one-half of the duty, or more when one-half or more of 
the vessel was o\^Tied by the inhabitants of the colony.^*^ 
Subsequent to 1744, vessels of Rhode Island were required 
to pay tonnage duties or a specified tax upon clearing. 
The necessity for revenue for a military expedition in 
1744, and later for the lighthouse on Beaver Tail Island 
made this course necessary.^® 

15 Acts and Resolves, I, 34, 164, 274, etc.; II, 14, 51, 79, 111, 141, 
etc.; Ill, 85, 188, 275, etc.; Whitmore, Laws of Mass. (1887), 69, 140, 
271. 

16 On her vessels bound for any port between Portsmouth and 
Philadelphia the duties were as follows; 10-30 tons burden. Is. 6d. ; 
30-50 tons, 2s.; 50-70 tons, 2s. 6d., and in proportion for larger ves- 
sels; when bound beyond these limits the rates on vessels of 20-50 
tons burden were 4s. 6d. ; 50-100 tons burden, 6s., and in proportion. 
The act of 1774 increased the rates for vessels bound for a port be- 
yond Philadelphia or Portsmouth as follows: 20-50 tons, 6s.; 50-70 
tons, 6s. 6d.; 70-90 tons, 9s.; 90-100 tons, 10s. 6d., and in propor- 
tion for larger vessels.— Public Rec. of Conn., XI, 10, 468; XIV, 216. 

17 Col. Rec. of R. I., Ill, 277, 487. In 1704, owing to the abundant 
supply of powder which was secured under the previous tonnage act, 
R. I. made further exemptions. Vessels built in New England, com- 
ing to Rhode Island to be fitted out, before undertaking a regular 
trading voyage, were exempted ; also coasters or other vessels bringing 
in grain or provisions from New England were exempted. — Ibid, 504. 

18 In 1744 the duty was 3d. per ton on coasting vessels, and 6d. on 



92 TONNAGE DUTIES 

In the middle colonies, the Assemblies of New Jersey 
^nd Delaware did not impose tonnage duties. The vessels 
built or owned by the inhabitants of the two other middle 
colonies — New York and Pennsylvania — were usually ex- 
empted from tonnage duties. New York exempted vessels 
from a duty of 2s. per ton in 1709, when owned principally 
by inhabitants of that province, although there appears 
to have been some opposition to the law.^'^ In 1714 vessels 
built or wholly owned by the inhabitants of the province 
(as well as vessels trading directly from Great Britain) 
were exempted from the duty of seven and a half ounces 
of plate, or its equivalent in current bills of credit. A 
clause making the British customs collectors liable for 
clearing a vessel for which the duty had not been paid 
were opposed at the debate in the provincial council, but 
it was ultimately included. In the reenactment of the 
law, English vessels were not included in the exemption, 
whereupon the Board of Trade, as we have seen, protested, 
and caused the Assembly to amend the act. Vessels owned 
by the inhabitants of Great Britain were exempted, as 
were also vessels built and owned by the inhabitants of 
New York, though not vessels merely owned by these in- 
habitants. The distinction was made to encourage ship- 
building in the province, but was not maintained for any 
length of time.^^ Clarke, in an address to the Assembly in 
1736, asserted that shipbuilding had been neglected in New 

aU others; in 1749 the rate was 10s. for each clearance of a coast- 
ing vessel; in 1754 it was 15s. which was again increased the follow- 
ing year. The rate was reduced to 3s. in 1766; and to 18d. two 
years later, but in 1771 it was increased again to 2s. — Col. Rec. of 
R. I., V, 393, 476; VI, 566; Acts and Laws (1745), 292; Acts and 
Laws (1752), 66; Acts and Laws (1767). 

19 Col. Laws of N. Y., I, 675; Journal of the Council of N. Y., 
I, 324. For specific exemptions, see ibid, 411, 417; Col. Laws of N. 
Y., I, 912, 913, 918-'920. 

20 Col. Laws of N. Y., I, 801, 847, 898, 1010; Journal of the Coun- 
cil of N. Y., I, 371, 372, 433, 434. The vessels owned by inhabitants 



TONNAGE DUTIES 93 

York, though in several of the neighboring colonies it was 
flourishing and indeed formed an important item in the 
returns to Great Britain. Three years later he reverted 
to the same subject, and emphasized the necessity of a 
bounty to shipping to counteract the relatively high prices 
demanded by the shipbuilders in the province. ^^ From 
1763 until the Revolution, a duty of 3d. per ton was im- 
posed on all vessels, to provide revenue for the lighthouse 
at Sandy Hook.^^ The earlier laws of Pennsylvania ex- 
empted the vessels owned by its inhabitants from tonnage 
duties; and even a duty of Is. 6d. per ton, to provide 
revenue for a war vessel in 1757, exempted coasting ves- 
sels. Lieutenant-Governor Denny feared the act might 
hamper trade too much. Certain Philadelphia merchants 
also urged its repeal for the same reason, and also be- 
cause the act did not provide an equitable distribution of 

of New York were practically all exempted in 1720. Col. Laws of 
N. Y., II, 18. 

The preamble to the act of 1734 is worthy of notice in this con- 
nection. "Whereas it is found by experience That ever since a Duty 
of Tonnage heretofore Layd on Vessels Trading into and out of this 
Colony, has been Discontinued, the Number of our own Shipping has 
Decreased to Such a Degree that at present the Vessels of other Ports 
are become almost our only Carriers. . . . 

"And Whereas it is Evident That Vessels Built or Owned here 
are of far Greater Benefit to the Shipwrights in particular & to 
the Inhabitants in General, than a much greater Number of Strangers 
coming Hither for Freights, Because the Money Earned by them is 
carryed out of the Colony, Whereas the Earnings of our own Vessels 
and of those that Navigate them Remains and Circulates Amongst us. 

"And Whereas Nothing can Contribute more to Retrieve the Lan- 
guishing State of our Trade, than the Encrease of our own Ship- 
ping and Navigation." . . . Col. Laws of New York, II, 843, 844. 

21 Journal of the Council of N. Y., I, 661, 731, 732. 

22 Col. Laws of N. Y., V, 741, 860, 923, 956, 1039. Whaling ves- 
sels while engaged in the whaling or coasting trade, and coasting 
vessels under eighty tons burden owned by the inhabitants of, and 
trading within the limits of New Hampshire and Cape Henry, were 
exempted from this duty. Cf. Journal of the Council of N. Y., II, 
1578, 1579. 



94 TONNAGE DUTIES 

the tax.22 In 1764, shallops and other small craft trading 
in the river and bay, and along the coast between Sandy 
Hook and Indian River were exempted from the duty of 
6d. per ton on vessels to provide for a lighthouse at Cape 
Henlopen.^^ 

The southern colonies, on the whole, permitted fewer 
exemptions to home shipping than the northern colonies. 
Maryland, however, went as far as any colony and ex- 
empted her own shipping from 1650 to the Revolution. 
Disputes arose from the act of 1661 (providing a duty of 
half a pound of powder and three pounds of shot, or its 
money equivalent) which the solicitor-general of the home 
government decided was intended for the private use of 
the proprietor. In 1739, it was contended by the As- 
sembly, yet unsuccessfully, that an act of 1704 entitling 
the proprietor to a perpetual tonnage duty of 14d. was 
null, or if it were in force, then part of that duty should 
be used for military defenses of the province. ^^ The 
earliest acts of Virginia (1631-1655) did not exempt the 
ships of her inhabitants from tonnage duties.^^ Upon the 
enactment of a new law in 1661 Virginia vessels were not 
exempted from the half pound of powder and three pound 
of shot (which could be commuted to Is. per ton). In 

23 Pa. Archives, 4th series, II, 903, 920, 961, 962; Votes of the As- 
sembly of Pa., V, 9, 10; Col. Ree. of Pa., VIII, 30, 31, 42. 

24 Pa. Statutes at Large, II, 384, III, 166, 238; etc. Several of 
these acts were apparently not submitted to the Crown for approval, 
at least not until they had expired by statutory limitation. Others 
were disallowed.— Ibid, II, 543, 544, 551; III, 440, 448; Chalmers, 
Revolt of the Colonies, I, 383. 

25 Md. Archives, Proceedings of the Council, 1687-1693, 421, 422, 
454; Proceedings of the Assembly, 1637-1664, 418; Proceedings of the 
Assembly, 1700-1704, 211, 214, 241, etc.; Mereness, Maryland as a 
Proprietary Province, 89-91, 291-293, 303, 304. 

26 Hening, Statutes, I, 176, 218, 229, 247, 301, 312, 402. The duty 
was repealed in 1660, so that Virginia owners (of which there were 
probably not many) did not benefit much from this exemption. — 
Ibid, II, 9. 



TONNAGE DUTIES 95 

accordance with the other means which were employed to 
encourage industries in that province, Virginia owners 
were shortly after exempted from this duty. In 1680, 
however, the same amount of shot and powder, or 15d. 
sterling per ton was required of every ship entering Vir- 
ginia, and it was not until 1710 that Virginia vessels ap- 
pear to have been again specifically exempted. When the 
lighthouse at Cape Henry was established shortly before 
the Revolution, Virginia shipping was again exempted. 
The earlier exemptions were due in part to a desire to en- 
courage shipbuilding.^^ North Carolina exempted vessels 
built or owned by inhabitants of the colony in 1715, and 
again in 1754 and 1759.^^ In South Carolina the acts did 
not provide exemptions until 1698, when it was proposed 
to encourage shipbuilding by exempting such vessels from 
the tonnage duty.^^ The attempts in 1716 and the few 
years thereafter have already been noted.^® The three acts 
of the royal province prior to 1738 imposed duties on all 
ships for the purpose of securing revenue for defense and 
the improvement of navigation, but in that and subsequent 
years coasting vessels, trading entirely within the prov- 
ince, were exempted from the tonnage duties. ^^ The only 
exemption provided by Georgia in its series of duties from 
1755 to the Revolution was on decked pettiaguas, or rice 

27Hening, Statutes, II, 134, 272, 466, 490; VIII, 539; Bruce, 
Economic History of Vir., II, 351, 434-436. Virginia ships were 
presumably exempted from the 4d. per ton duty for the lighthouse, 
since vessels from Maryland were exempted. 

28 State Kec. of N. C, XXIII, 45, 401, 505. The act of 1715 also 
exempted any vessel from the tonnage duties which imported four 
hundred bushels of salt. Special duties were imposed upon all ves- 
sels in 1752 and later to provide a revenue to facilitate the naviga- 
tion of the ports of entry. — Ibid, 375, 588. 

29 Cooper, Statutes, I, 42, 82; II, 150. 
80 Ante, p. 24. 

31 Cooper, Statutes, III, 491, 588, 685. 



96 TONNAGE DUTIES 

boats of fifty barrels capacity and upwards — and even 
these boats were required to pay an annual tax.^^ 

In general, vessels of the legislating colony were fre- 
quently exempted from tonnage duties, particularly dur- 
ing the period prior to the middle of the eighteenth cen- 
tury, when the increasing necessity of revenue for 
lighthouses and means of defense made it essential in sev- 
eral instances to impose tonnage duties on home shipping. 
The chief purpose of the exemption was the desire or 
perhaps even the necessity of placing few restrictions upon 
trade, though the encouragement to shipbuilding was also 
an important factor. 

Exemptions to Ships of Other Colonies. The exemption 
of vessels of the neighboring colonies from tonnage duties 
was also determined chiefly by the desire to aid trade — 
practically the coasting-trade. These exemptions were 
common in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York and 
Pennsylvania, i.e., in trading colonies; while in only a 
few instances were these exemptions accorded by the 
southern colonies. A brief analysis will indicate the ex- 
tent of these exemptions, which were not, in most in- 
stances, so important as those to home shipping. 

New Hampshire exempted the vessels of Connecticut 
and Rhode Island from the powder duty in 1686,^^ and 
those of Massachusetts in 1693.^^ In the act of 1718 for- 

32 The annual tax amounting to 1£ 5s. sterling in the act of 1755. 
Ships paid 1£ 7s. 6d. per voyage; a snow, brig, "polaere or sactia," 
1£ 2s. 6d. ; a sloop or schooner, over eighty tons burden, 17s. 6d.; 
under eighty tons, 15s. — Acts of the General Assembly, 1755-1774, 
52. Cf. Jones, History of Ga., I, 485. 

33 Batchellor, Laws of N. H., I, 125. 

34 " . . . Sloops or Boats, That trade a longe the shore, to 
be free from paying of Powder Money that comes into this Province 
for Traffiek from any part or Harbour on this sid Con'ectticutt." — 
Batchellor, Laws of N. H., I, 566. This provision was reenacted in 
1731, but it is not likely that freedom from tonnage duties was 
continued for any length of time, owing to the boundary disputes 



TONNAGE DUTIES 97 

eign vessels above thirty tons burden coming '^frorn over 
the sea, ' ' not owned chiefly by the inhabitants of the prov- 
ince, were required to pay a tonnage duty of 2s. or one 
pound of powder. No mention is made in this act of 
exemptions to coasting vessels. ^^ Massachusetts provided 
exemptions in her first act (1645) imposing tonnage 
duties.^^ A duty of 6d. per ton was imposed except on 
English vessels and ^^any Vessel of our Confederates, or 
any parts where our Ships are free of customs. Imposts 
and Taxes.'' In 1694 (though not in the acts for the 
two previous years) coasting vessels from New England, 
New York and East or West Jersey were exempted from 
the tonnage duty, but in its place they were required to 
pay a maximum duty of 6d. per ton twice per annum. 
The payment of this duty for each voyage would have 
been too burdensome on the small vessels which were en- 
gaged in the coasting trade, and thus would have imposed 
a rather severe restriction upon that trade. Hence the 
provision was maintained until the Revolution.^^ Rhode 
Island did not accord exemptions to vessels of neighboring 
colonies until the middle of the eighteenth century.^^ 

during the next decade. — N. H. Province Papers, IV, 608, 609; Ex)b- 
inson, History of Taxation of N. H., 66. 

35 Acts and Laws (1726), 64. A special exemption was granted 
in 1700 to vessels laden with corn, provisions and hay. — Batchellor, 
Laws of N. H., I, 674. 

36 Whitmore, Col. Laws of Mass. ( 1887 ) , 69. These vessels were, 
however, to pay a tax of 6s. 8d. for the maintenance of the forts 
if under two hundred tons burden, and 10s. if over two hundred 
tons. The provision exempting confederates of the colony was re- 
enacted in 1679.— Ibid, 271; cf. ibid, 140. 

'37 Acts and Hesolves, I, 34, 101, 164, 274, 482, 526, etc.; Ill, 85, 
1007, etc.; IV, 84, 981, etc. Pennsylvania was added to the list in 
1701, and Nova Scotia in 1762. In 1695 vessels bringing in pro- 
visions were exempted from the tonnage duties. — Ibid, I, 227. 

38 In 1704 vessels coming to Rhode Island to be fitted out, or im- 
porting grain, were exempted from tonnage duties. — Col. Rec. of 
R. I., Ill, 504. 



98 TONNAGE DUTIES 

Even subsequent to that period, it provided lower duties 
or taxes rather than exemptions. The act of 1744 pro- 
vided a duty of 6d. per ton, and 3d. per ton on coasting 
vessels, for the use of a fort. In 1749 a duty of 18d. old 
tenor per ton was imposed on vessels to provide revenue 
for a lighthouse. Coasting vessels, (i. e., vessels trading to 
Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York and Philadelphia, 
or importing spars, planks and boards from New Hamp- 
shire, or provisions from Maryland or Virginia) were to 
pay 10s. for each clearance, while fishing vessels, and 
sloops for fetching wood, stone and sand were exempted 
from all tonnage duties.^^ 

The earlier laws of New York exempted the vessels of 
neighboring colonies. The act of 1709 imposed a duty of 
2s. per ton on vessels of colonies other than Massachu- 
setts, Rhode Island, Connecticut and New Jersey, and fur- 
thermore exempted such vessels of other colonies, whenever 
one-half or more were owned by inhabitants of New York. 
Although the duties were increased subsequently, coast- 
ing vessels were still exempted. In 1734 coasting 
vessels owned wholly by persons residing within the 
limits of Cape Henlopen and New Hampshire were ex- 
empted from the payment of tonnage duties of seven and 
a half ounces of plate, or 3s. specie. The same exemption 
was even granted in the 3d. per ton duty imposed in 1763 
and afterwards for the lighthouse at Sandy Hook.^^ Penn- 
sylvania exempted vessels trading from West Jersey and 
Delaware in 1710, though the act was rejected by the 
Crown three years later.^^ Tonnage duties were not im- 

39 The tax on coasting vessels was changed several times prior 
to the Revolution. — Acts and Laws (1745), 292; Acts and Laws 

(1752), 66; CoL Rec. of R. L, III, 487; V, 279, 393. 

40 Col. Laws of N. Y., I, 675, 779, 801, 898; II, 16, 843, 867; III, 
754; IV, 370, 741, 766; V, 280. 

41 Pa., Statutes at Large, II, 385, 543. Vessels of the lower 
counties comprising Delaware were placed on an equal footing with 
those of Pennsylvania in 1698, when they paid 4d. per ton; all 



y arc 



TONNAGE DUTIES 99 

posed for three decades prior to the passage of an act in 
1758 providing revenue for a provincial ship-of-war. By 
this act, shallops and other small vessels trading within 
Delaware River and Bay, and along the coast from Sandy 
Hook to the Indian River were exempted from the duty of 
Is. 6d. per ton. This was the act which, as we have seen, 
aroused the opposition of certain merchants, because the 

ity was not only burdensome but was inequitably im- 
posed. Nevertheless it was continued until 1760, and the 
surplus revenue was devoted to piers in the Delaware.*^ 
A lottery proving inadequate to provide revenue in 1763 
for a lighthouse at Cape Henlopen, a 6d. per ton duty was 
imposed with the same exemptions as in 1758.*^ 

The southern colonies did not grant many exemptions 
to vessels of neighboring colonies. Mutual exemptions 
from the 4d. per ton for a lighthouse at Cape Henry 
were provided by Maryland and Virginia in 1773.^^ North 
Carolina, in 1715, exempted all vessels from the tonnage 
duty when importing four hundred bushels of salt.^^ 

This brief survey indicates the relative importance of the 
exemptions from tonnage duties to home shipping rather 
than to that of the neighboring colonies. To have ex- 
empted the latter class of ships, in addition to home ship- 
ping would have meant the giving up of tonnage duties, 
from which revenue for the use of forts, lighthouses and 
other aids to navigation was secured. 

other vessels paid 8d. per ton. — Charter and Laws, 1682-1700, 268. 
The acts of 1718 and 1721 did not grant any exemptions. — Pa., 
Statutes at Large, III, 166, 238. 

42 Pa., Statutes at Large, V, 409; VI, 72, 173. 

*^ Ibid, VI, 302, 372. A like exemption was granted when an 
additional duty of 6d. was imposed in 1766; and in the later acts 
of 1771, 1773 and 1775.— Ibid, VII, 42; VIII, 125, 278, 423. 

44Hening, Statutes of Vir., VIII, 539, 652; Laws of Md. (in 
I Charlemagne Tower Collection), Dec. 23, 1773. 

45 state Rec. of N. C, XXIII, 45; repealed 1748, chap. 10. The 
duty consisted of 1 pound of powder, 4 pounds of shot and twelve 
5 flints for every three tons of the vessel. 



CHAPTER V 

PORT REGULATIONS 

Vessels trading with the colonies were required to enter 
at ports which were established either by the home gov- 
ernment or, as was usually the case, by the colonies them- 
selves through the charter or the instructions to the Gov- 
ernor.^ The various regulations to insure due entry of 
vessels and to prevent smuggling; the registration of ves- 
sels ; the wharfage dues ; the port fees ; the regulations con- 
cerning seamen; the pilotage regulations — all constituted 
quite an important and essential body of commercial reg- 
ulations affecting the navigation and trade of the several 
colonies. 

NAVIGATION REGULATIONS. '^ 

Ports of Entry and Port Control, Without exception 
ports were established for *' entering" vessels trading to 

1 7 and 8 Wm. Ill, c. 22, see. 10; Acts and Resolves of Mass., I, 
336, note; N. J. Archives, 1st series, II, 177, 178, 180-185. Public 
Rec. of Conn., IV, 374. See also charters in Poore, Charters and 
Constitutions. 

2 The navigation regulations were actually more comprehensive 
than will appear in the discussion in this chapter. Hence a word 
or two here on certain regulations may not be amiss. 

Attention should be called to the maritime codes adopted in three 
of the New England colonies. Those of Massachusetts and Con- 
necticut are identical and embrace 27 sections, relating to shipping 
and seamen. Rhode Island, in 1647, ordered the enforcement of 
"Sea Laws, otherwise called the Lawes of Oleron" for the benefit of 
seamen. — Whitmore, Col. Laws of Mass., 93-100; Col. Rec. of R. I., 
I, 151. 

Acts relating to the casting of ballast in harbors and navigable 

100 



PORT REGULATIONS 101 

the colony. The numerous bays, rivers and creeks in the 
northern colonies made smuggling comparatively easy. 
The legal trade was, however, limited to a few ports, vary- 
ing somewhat with the amount of trade, at which the 
British and the provincial customs and naval officers were 

waterways were enacted by most of the colonies. A penalty aver- 
aging £10 was imposed for violations. — See, e. g., Batchellor, Laws 
of N. H., I, 33; Whitmore, Col. Laws of Mass., 9; Col. Laws of 
N. Y., I, 167. 

Quarantine regulations were passed by practically all of tbe col- 
onies especially in the southern colonies. It was frequently the 
duty of the pilot to inquire after the health of the passengers and 
crew of an inbound vessel. None was supposed to pass the fort at 
the entrance of the port until the quarantine regulations had been 
met. An act of South Carolina (1752) even provided a ten-day 
quarantine upon vessels in any event when bound from Africa. The 
length of the quarantine period was generally left for determination 
to the Governor.— Cooper, Statutes of S. C, III, 127, 771; IV, 78; 
State Rec. of N. C, XXIII, 651, 677, 827, 956; XXV, 328; Laws 
of New Castle, Kent and Sussex upon Delaware, 67; Col. Laws of 
N. Y., Ill, 1071, 1141. 

The facilitation of trade and navigation was secured to some ex- 
tent by the regulations affecting the wages and the limitation of 
the credit of seamen. The maritime codes mentioned above contain 
numerous provisions relating to the duties and wages of seamen. 
Disputes about the payment of seamen's wages were frequently to 
take precedence, in the lower courts, to delay shipping as little as 
possible, or until the judge had first approved of the suit as pro- 
vided in 1751 by South Carolina. The credit of the seaman for 
which inn-keepers and other persons could hold him liable, was 
usually limited to five shillings, unless a written consent of the 
master of the vessel authorized a larger credit. — Cooper, Statutes 
of S. C, III, 735; Acts and Resolves of Mass., I, 142; Col. Laws 
of N. Y., I, 345, 866; Batchellor, Laws of N. H., I, 80, 571, 691; 
Col. Rec. of N. C, II, 758, 762. 

In several colonies the Assemblies regulated the wharfage, dockage 
and storage dues. Massachusetts regulated wharfage dues on va- 
rious classes of goods in 1647, but did not continue this practice 
long. Delaware began to regulate wharves in 1772, and Pennsyl- 
vania, through the Board of Port Wardens, about a decade earlier. 
New York, Georgia and South Carolina made more comprehensive 
provisions. Owing to disputes arising from rates established by 
owners of wharves in New York City, the Assembly regulated the 
rates for certain wharves in 1734, according to the size of the ves- 



102 PORT REGULATIONS 

located. Most of the southern colonies provided for a 
much larger number of ports of entry. Nor is the reason 
far to seek. The trade to the southern colonies was fre- 
quently transacted by vessels ascending the rivers and 
creeks practically to the landing of the plantations. Yet 
a larger number of ports meant more administrative ma- 
chinery and more expense than was necessary for only a 
few ports of entry. 

In 1663, acting on instructions from the privy council, 

sel. This act was re-enacted in more detail ten years later, and 
then continued to 1770. A comprehensive law, regulating wharfage 
and storage charges was passed by South Carolina in 1768 and 
amended ten years later. The legislation of Georgia in this direc- 
tion began in 1764. In this act and its supplements, a harbor- 
master was established at Savannah, and wharfage charges were 
provided for ships (except coasting vessels) and goods. Provision 
was also made for storage charges, and mooring vessels in Savannah 
harbor. — Whitmore, Col. Laws of Mass., 156, 157; Laws of Del. 
(1797), I, 481; Col. Laws of K Y., II, 847; III, 437, 993; Cooper, 
Statutes of S. C, IV, 286, 435; Watkins, Digest of Laws of Ga., 
159. 

Sea passes (or Mediterranean passes as they were sometimes 
called), were of importance to British vessels trading to Mediter- 
ranean ports, preventing molestation by the Barbary pirates, and 
were regulated by the Admiralty. To secure the protection of Great 
Britain, abuses were committed in granting passes, and in conse- 
quence the privy coimcil issued new instructions in 1722. The 
naval officer or other proper officer of the customs in the colonies 
was required to exercise due care in granting passes, while the Gov- 
ernor was enjoined not only to cancel and transmit those which had 
expired to the Admiralty Office, but to transmit an exact account of 
all such passes issued. Bond was required to unload in a British 
port before the pass could be properly issued. Changes were pro- 
posed or made subsequently, as in 1730 and 1765, to correct abuses 
which still continued.— Pa. Archives, I, 177, 180, 182, 242, 256, 258, 
282, 439; IV, 243, 622; Beer, British Colonial Policy, 7 note 2. 

The regulation of immigrants and convicts, and the acts imposing 
penalties on persons cutting adrift or taking small boats, come to a 
certain extent under navigation regulations, but will not receive 
further consideration here. 

No important changes of principle occurred during the period 
prior to 1789 along the lines of the legislation just outlined in this 
note. 



POET REGULATIONS 103 

Massachusetts provided for the enforcement of the navi- 
gation act by establishing three custom districts where 
bonds for the enumerated commodities were taken, seiz- 
ures made of vessels loading these commodities without 
giving bond or presenting a certificate, and accounts kept 
of ships and their masters.^ Connecticut, as early as 1659, 
provided nine ports of entry for liquors subject to duty. 
In 1702 the act provided naval offices in eight ports (cor- 
responding closely to those established in the earlier law) 
for the proper entry or clearance of vessels, while the 
naval officer received a fee of Is. for entering or clearing 
vessels.* 

Among the provisions of other northern colonies in es- 
tablishing ports of entry, probably the most interesting 
and important was the attempt to make Perth Amboy a 
port. The authorities in New York insisted upon the pay- 
ment of duties and the entering and clearing at New York 
of vessels trading to East Jersey.^ Governor Dongan, 
in a report on the state of the province of New York in 

sWhitmore, Laws of Mass. (1887), 139, 140; Col. Rec. of Mass., 
IV, pt. 2, 73. A law enacted shortly after 1668 gave the "country 
Treasurer" the power to appoint collectors in the several ports. No 
custom-house was established, nor were the acts of trade and navi- 
gation strictly enforced. Edmund Randolph found this to be the 
case. The committee for Trade and Plantations recommended that 
the Lord Treasurer appoint customs officers at Boston and else- 
where in New England to insure the enforcement of these acts. 
The General Court of Massachusetts, in accordance with such in- 
structions, provided in 1677 that these acts should be strictly ob- 
served, and five years later a naval office, under the complete con- 
trol of the colonial authorities, was established — "in opposition to 
the royal collector" according to Randolph. Even then the acts of 
trade were not strictly observed, nor was it perhaps the intention 
to do so. — Whitmore, Col. Laws of Mass., 70, 139, 140, 258; Hutchin- 
son, History of Mass., I, 269; Randolph (pub. of Prince Society), 
I, 49, 50, 81, 111, 153, 182; III, 70-73, 341. 

4 Public Rec. of Conn., I, 332; III, 307, 308; IV, 374, 397. 

5 For the dispute concerning the establishment of a port at Eliza- 
bethtown, see Osgood, American Colonies, II, 187-190. 



104 POET REGULATIONS 

1687, regarded the establishment of a port at Perth Amboy 
as very ^inconvenient" for the trade of his province, and 
suggested annexation to New York as a solution. The pro- 
prietors of East Jersey objected to such a procedure, and 
were really desirous of encouraging free trade by the es- 
tablishment of free ports. That same year an order in 
council instructed Governor Dongan to permit vessels to 
enter and clear at Perth Amboy directly, without first 
entering New York. A proviso was, however, added to the 
effect that he should appoint a customs officer to collect 
^Hhe same customs & Imports as are usually paid at New 
York." Opposition was manifested to the collection of 
the duty in East Jersey, and in two decisions by law of- 
ficers of the Crown it was held that the customs duties 
could be imposed only by act of Parliament or by ^'Some 
Assembly that Actes as a parliament according to the 
Rules and Government of the place." The two Jerseys 
were legally distinct from New York, and therefore were 
not liable for the duties collected by that province in East 
or West Jersey. Nevertheless, it was decided by an order 
in council, issued November 25, 1697, that duties should be 
paid to New York by vessels trading in the Hudson River, 
for the law officers of the Crown had decided that the 
Duke of York had no power in his grant to establish ports, 
and therefore could not convey such a power to Lord 
Berkeley or Sir G. Carteret. Bellomont thereupon issued 
a proclamation requiring vessels to first enter and clear at 
New York. Five days later (May 30, 1698) Governor 
Basse of East Jersey also issued a proclamation establish- 
ing Perth Amboy as a port, because the Commissioners of 
the Customs of England had previously instructed Ed- 
mund Randolph to consider Perth Amboy and Burlington 
as ports of entry. The matter was finally taken to West- 
minster Hall and decided in favor of Governor Basse. In 



PORT REGULATIONS 105 

surrendering their government, the proprietors insisted 
upon the right to establish ports.® 

As the result of an instruction, the Governor of Mary- 
land in 1668 issued a proclamation limiting the number 
of ports of entry to twelve, most of which were on large 
estates.^ Since this, and other proclamations were inade- 
quate, a bill was passed in 1683 providing thirty-one ports, 
which number was increased to fifty -seven by the tifae of 
the Revolution of 1689.^ In 1747 an act for the inspec- 
tion of tobacco provided for the establishment of eighty 
wharves, as well as warehouses and scales. The expenses 
of inspection and equipment were certainly a drawback, 
but the advantages derived from the improved quality of 
the tobacco exported outweighed it. Of the disadvantage 
of numerous ports. Governor Sharpe wrote in 1762 that 
*'As the Merchants there (Philadelphia) can always load 
their vessels at once they can afford to give more for the 
Cargoes than Merchants in this Province can give, because 
ours must be a long time collecting a Cargo for even a 
small Vessel there being no Town or Port in Maryland 
where any considerable quantity of Country Produce can 
be purchased at once or together. . . . The only 
means to remedy the evil would be to restrain the whole 
Trade of the Province to one or two Ports a Scheme not 
likely to be relished by the Assembly. . . ." ^ The 

«N. Y, Col. Doc, III, 389, 428; N. J. Archives, first series, I, 
524-527, 535, 537, 540; II, 136-138, 178, 179, 200, 218-221, 227, 228; 
Randolph (pub. of Prince Society), V, 166, 167. 

7Md. Archives Proceedings of the Council, 1667-1687, 31, 32. 

8Md. Archives, Proceedings of the Assembly, 1678-1683, 352, 488, 
492, 540; etc. These acts were repealed in 1692. Another act of 
this nature was passed in 1706, but was disallowed by the Crown be- 
cause no restriction was imposed on the place of loading vessels. — 
Mereness, Maryland as a Proprietary Province, 414. 

» Bacon, Laws of Md., 1747; Md. Archives, Corres. of Gov. Sharpe, 
III, 72. 



106 PORT REGUIiATIONS 

unsuccessful attempts of Virginia to make James- 
town the only port of entry demonstrated the imprac- 
ticability of a few ports in a plantation colonj^ Numerous 
attempts were made after the middle of the seventeenth 
century to create towns in certain counties, or along navi- 
gable rivers of that colony, and to make them ports of 
entry. These acts were also practically unsuccessful and 
were even opposed at times by English merchants, as in 
the so-called *'Act for Ports" in the code of 1705 — re- 
pealed by proclamation five years later. These efforts also 
affected the revenue, for evasions were easier. As in Mary- 
land, the shipment of tobacco from the plantation wharf 
was preferred, and subsequently was changed by shipment 
from public warehouses.^^ The difficulties of navigation, 
and the lack of good ports, kept considerable trade (ex- 
cept the coasting trade) from North Carolina.^^ South 
Carolina and Georgia each had one good port, and ports 
of entry established in these colonies were limited to a 
small number, as in the northern colonies. 

By the parliamentary acts of trade and navigation the 
Governor became the agent of the home government, be- 
sides acting as the chief executive of the province. The 
act of 1660 required him to take an oath to enforce the 
provisions of the act, particularly with reference to bonds 
for enumerated goods under penalty of removal from 
office.^^ His duties were given in more detail in the act 
of 1663, and he could authorize persons to act for him.^^ 
Other duties were imposed upon the Governor by various 

loHening, Statutes, II, 135, 172, 471; III, 53, 108, 404, 541. 
An excellent account of the efforts of Virginia to establish towns 
and ports during the seventeenth century is contained in Bruce, 
Economic History of Vir., II, chap. XX. 

11 Col. Rec. of N. C, II, xii, xiv-xvi; 775; Hawk, History of N. C, 
II, 269, 270. 

12 12 Car. II, c. 18, sec. ii, xix. 

13 15 Car. II, c. 7, sec. vii. 



PORT REGULATIONS 107 

acts of Parliament, but the most notable act in this respect 
was the one which aimed to prevent frauds and regulate 
abuses in the plantation trade, passed in 1696. By this 
act even Governors of the proprietary provinces had to 
be approved by the Crown.^* The instructions to the 
Governor also provided for the due observance of the acts 
of trade and navigation. As a matter of fact, they were 
not always carefully observed in the various colonies.^* 
The administration of the acts, however, was usually left 
in the hands of the collector of the customs, and the naval 
officer, men who frequently acted as deputies for persons 
appointed through the Board of Trade, and whose prin- 
cipals preferred to reside in England. These officials se- 
cured their income from fees, which the colonial assemblies 
claimed they could regulate. If such officials found it 
more to their interest, as some of them did, not to enforce 
the acts of trade and navigation, it would have been difficult 
to check them. On the other hand, if the laws were en- 
forced too strictly to please the merchants, opposition was 
aroused and charges were brought against the zealous 
official.^^ Admiralty courts were also to be provided to 
assist in the proper enforcement of the acts of trade and 
navigation. Randolph urged their establishment. In a 
memorial, submitted in 1696, the proprietors of Carolina, 

1* 7 and 8 Wm. Ill, c. 22, sec. iii-v, xv. 

15 There is much material in colonial records showing that the acts 
of trade and navigation were not duly observed. — See e. g., Randolph 
(pub. of the Prince Society), I, 49, 50, 78, 182; III, 70-73, 341-351; 

V, 151-160; Bernard, Select Letters on the trade and government of 
America, 1-4; N. Y. Col. Doc, passim; Carroll, Historical Coll. Cf. 
C, II, 232 ; Weeden, Econ. and Social History of N. Eng., II, 657, 
660. 

16 Votes of the Assembly of Pa., Ill, 287, 288; Chalmers, Revolt 
of the Colonies, I, 269, 272-274; K Y. Col. Doc, IV, 591. Occasion- 
ally a special official like Randolph, the collector, surveyor and 
searcher for New England, or surveyor-general Quary, was sent over. 
— Randolph (pub. of the Prince Society), I, 47-52; N. Y. Col. Doc, 
V, 199, 329. 



108 PORT REGULATIONS 

Pennsylvania, the Jerseys and the Bahamas, and the agent 
of Connecticut, stated that they were ** willing and ready'' 
to establish these courts, which had not been done pre- 
viously, since the act of 1663 permitted breaches of the 
navigation acts to be tried in the common law courts, and 
it would have been expensive to establish separate admir- 
alty courts. The establishment of vice-admiralty courts 
soon followed, and since they decided cases without juries, 
they were not well liked in the colonies.^^ 

The administrative machinery of the colonies for the 
enforcement of their several acts of trade and navigation 
was in part the same, and in part different from that pro- 
vided by the home government. Nor was there any uni- 
formity throughout the various colonies. In general the 
earlier acts, i. e., during the seventeenth century, did not 
provide for many officials. A collector usually performed 
these duties. Massachusetts in 1645 provided a chief offi- 
cer or ''Customer," and deputies, known as searchers and 
waiters; while Connecticut designated nine customs officers 
in 1659 when naval offices were established.^^ In New 
York, at the time when Andros was in control, there was a 
collector, appointed by the Duke of York, and in addition 
a controller, surveyor and searcher. Goods, whether im- 
ported or exported, were to be taken to the weigh-house in 
New York (a Dutch institution retained under English rule, 
as for example in the act of 1693), and the duties there 
determined.^^ The early laws of Pennsylvania contained 
very meagre administrative regulations. In the act of 
1700 the Governor was to appoint the officers, who were 
moreover to search vessels and houses whenever it was sus- 
pected that goods were not properly customed.^ South 

17 N. J. Archives, 1st series, II, 133, 134; Randolph (pub. of the 
Prince Society), V, 117-124, 130-132; Beer, British Col. Policy, 249. 

18 Whitmore, Col. Laws of Mass., 68 ; Public Rec. of Conn., I, 332. 
ION. Y. Col. Doc, III, 309, 310, 335; Col. Laws of N. Y., I, 322. 
20 Pa. Statutes at Large, II, 108. 



PORT REGULATIONS 109 

Carolina, by the act of 1691, provided a receiver of the 
customs who received the duties and also cleared vessels, 
while the secretary issued certificates for the exportation 
of skins and furs. A controller was further provided in 
the more elaborate act of 1703 increasing the tariff sched- 
ule. He was to aid in searches and seizures of goods which 
were not properly entered.-^ The duty of the powder 
receiver was to collect the tonnage duty. The Virginia 
and Maryland Assemblies recognized the collectors for the 
home government as legal officers, and distinguished be- 
tween ** country dues and parliamentary customs. ^^ In 
Maryland the proprietor appointed his officials, and was 
enabled to choose practically his own method of securing 
the tobacco duty, but in practice it was collected by the 
naval officer. The early acts of Virginia merely provided 
for the appointment of the officials by the Governor or by 
the county sheriff during a vacancy of the Governor's 
position, — the collector of port charges, the secretary, and 
the collectors authorized to administer the acts of trade.^^ 
This brief outline of the administrative machinery, while 
not exhaustive, was added to according to the needs of the 
province, but without much of a tendency towards a greater 
degree of uniformity.^^ 

The point to be emphasized is the lack of any really 
efficient administrative organization and control to collect 
the customs or carry out the various navigation regula- 
tions.^* During the eighteenth century, the Assembly as- 

21 Cooper, Statutes of S. C, II, 42, 64, 71, 73, 200. 

22 Chalmers, Revolt of the Colonies, I, 126 ; Hening, Statutes of 
Vir., I, 534, 535; II, 130-132; Md. Archives, Proceedings of the As- 
sembly, 1637-1664, 418; ibid, 1684-1692, 463. 

23 An account, yet not complete, is given by Goss of the customs 
administration of Massachusetts, New York and Virginia. — ^History 
of Tariff Administration, 12-23. See also Carroll, Historical Coll. of 
S. C, II, 221-223. The answers of the Governors to the Board of 
Trade also give in many cases the administrative personnel. 

24 Randolph (pub. of the Prince Society), II, 167. 



110 PORT REGULATIONS 

sumed a more exclusive power of regulation over these 
officials, in part by the audit of accounts, in part by the 
appointment of collectors or other persons, but chiefly by 
the control which it exercised over appropriations includ- 
ing the regulation of fees. South Carolina carried the 
policy of appointment by Assembly farther than most of 
the colonies. In 1721 it provided for the appointment, 
among others, of the treasurer, comptroller and powder 
receiver. The Governor was subsequently instructed not 
to assent to any law for the appointment of public officers.^^ 
The very lack of efficient administration made it diffi- 
cult, aside from other factors, to enforce not only the laws 
relating to navigation regulations, but practically all of 
the trade regulations, particularly the tariff acts. We 
have evidence that the parliamentary acts of trade and 
navigation, while adhered to in the main by the merchants, 
were not always strictly enforced. The evidence for the 
colonial acts is by no means so apparent. The internal 
evidence (i. e., the attempts to make the laws more effect- 
ual by giving for example the collector greater powers of 
search and seizure; by imposing larger penalties upon 
shipmasters for failing to enter their vessels before break- 
ing bulk or for the understatement of the tonnage of the 
vessel and permitting the surveyor or carpenter to ascer- 
tain the true tonnage of the vessel by actual measure- 
ment) furnishes us only a part of the answer. If the 
merchant found it to his interest to violate the parlia- 
mentary acts of trade and navigation, with or without the 
connivance of the officials, there was no reason why the 
same procedure could not be carried out for the provincial 
laws, though not to the same degree — except in connection 
with the embargoes in time of war. Governor Sharpe, for 

25 Pa. Archives, 4th series, I, 535, 536; II, 920; Cooper, Statutes 
of S. C, III, 148; CarroU, Historical Coll. of S. C, II, 221; Greene, 
Provincial Governor, 167, 180, 186-188. 



PORT REGULATIONS 111 

example, more than hints at illegal trade of Pennsylvania 
merchants who ^^have for a long time been Endeavouring 
to get an Inlet into this Province, and as I have been 
informed the^^ have Transported by Land Sundry goods 
Particularly Rum, which has been brought in great Quan- 
tities without notice of application to any Office. '^^^ 

Some of the colonies provided commissions or boards 
for regulating the navigation of the port. Their purpose, 
however, was somewhat different from that which estab- 
lished ports of entry. The commissions were empowered 
to provide beacons, buoys, piers and other improvements 
to navigation in the ports under their superviaion. Hence 
their purpose was to facilitate and improve navigation to 
encourage trade. 

In North Carolina the policy of facilitating the naviga- 
tion, under the direction of commissioners, was commenced 
in 1723.^^ Great difficulties had been experienced in 
bringing ships over the bars and shoals. As a result, a 
commissioner was appointed by the Governor, and allowed 
£250 the first year to mark out the channels from Ocacock 
Inlet. Similar regulations were provided for other ports in 
the colony, and in addition the commissioners were to secure 
sufficient pilots to navigate the ships to the various ports.^^ 
Pennsylvania created a Board of Port Wardens in 1766 -^ 
for the port of Philadelphia. Their earlier duties were 
restricted to the regulation of pilots and Avill be discussed 
later.^^ In 1773 ^^ they were authorized to borrow £12,000 

26 Md. Archives, Corres. of Gov. Sharpe, III, 99. N. Y. Col. Doc, 
III, 305; IV, 516, 517; VII, 271, 272; Carroll, Historical Coll. of 
S. C, II, 232; Votes of the Assembly of Pa., Ill, 287, 288; Corres. 
of Gov. Sharpe, I, 92; III, 118, 160, 161, 182; Randolph (pub. of 
the .Prince Society), III, 70-76, 84-86; V, 22-24, 35-52, 139, 151- 
160; N. J. Archives, 1st series, VII, 134. 

2T State Rec. of N. C, XXV, 194. 

28 Ibid, XXIII, 127, 375, 475, 483, 506. 

29 Pa. Statutes at Large, VII, 19. 

30 Supra, p. 120. 

31 Pa. Statutes at Large, VIII, 264. 



112 PORT REGULATIONS 

to erect piers and buoys, and in addition they provided for 
the maintenance of the lighthouse at Cape Henlopen. 
Two years later they were able to report that they had dis- 
charged the debts due for building the lighthouse at Cape 
Henlopen, that they had completed several piers and 
formed a harbor of refuge at Fort Island, as well as erected 
three piers at Reedy Island. A further loan of £6,000 
was thereupon granted to them for erecting several piers 
and ^^for the improvement of the commerce of the prov- 
ince. "^^ South Carolina also provided commissioners 
with duties similar to those of her northern neighbors. In 
1746 ^^ five commissioners were appointed to erect beacons 
and buoys near Georgetown and Winyaw harbors. Their 
most important duty, however, seems to have been the 
supervision of the pilotage to these ports. Similar legisla- 
tion was provided for the other ports of the colony. There 
was no regular policy of port control in the other colo- 
nies ; ^* temporary commissions were created from time to 
time in order to provide for some specific improvement, — 
usually for a lighthouse. 

Registry of Vessels, To provide for the proper collec- 
tion of the tonnage duties, as well as to furnish a legal 
record of identification, a vessel had to be registered. The 
registers were issued as a rule by the Governor or the 
customs officer. As a navigation regulation, the ship's 
tonnage was of the greatest practical importance in con- 
nection with the tonnage duties. The usual method of 
collecting these duties was to require the tonnage of the 
vessel from the master. Although this statement was ren- 
dered under oath, it was not uncommon to understate the 

82 Pa. Statutes at Large, VIII, 427 ; Acts of the Assembly of Pa., 
465. 

33 Cooper, Statutes of S. C, III, 678. 

34 Wardens were to examine damaged goods brought in. Col. 
Laws of ISr. Y., IV, 173. 



PORT REGULATIONS 113 

true tonnage of the vessel, and thereby reduce the amount 
of duties which were paid. In fact, it was customary to 
state approximately two-thirds of the true tonnage of the 
vessel to the powder receiver or other proper officer. In 
comparing the trade between the United States and Great 
Britain before and after the Revolution, one writer, who 
based his statistical evidence on information from George 
Chalmers, accounted for the decrease in the number of 
ships prior to the Revolution in large part to ^^the imper- 
fect manner of taking the tonnage which, in order that 
the master might be charged a less sum for pilotage and 
lighthouse duties, was generally estimated at about one- 
third less than it really was.^^ 

The acts imposing the tonnage duties sought to remedy 
any understatement of the registered tonnage of vessels 
by empowering the naval officer, surveyor, or other officer 
mentioned in the act, to go on board the vessel, and make 
a measurement in accordance with the rules laid down in 
the act of the legislating colony. The prevalent practice 
in measuring a decked vessel was to multiply the length, 
breadth (amidships) and depth together, and to divide the 
product by ninety-five.^^ 

PORT FEES. 

Extent and Policy of Port Fees, The Governors were 
authorized, with the advice of their council, to regulate the 
fees of public officers in the colonies.^^ The Assemblies 

35 Burnaby, Travels through North America. (N. Y., 1904.) Ap- 
pendix No. 2, 165. Cf. also Report of committee of Privy Council 
(1791), p. 15. 

36 There were naturally variations from this rule. Thus, the act 
of New York passed in 1734 multiplied three- fourths of the length 
of a double-decked vessel by the breadth and depth and divided by 
ninety-five.— Col. Laws of N. Y., II, 843. 

37 See instructions to governors. — Col. Rec. of N. C, III, 103, 151; 
Col. Rec. of Ga., VII, 62; N. H. Province Papers, II, 66, etc. 



114 PORT REGULATIONS 

exercised the right much more frequently than the Gov- 
ernor, for it dealt with a fiscal question over which the 
Assembly generally managed to secure control.^^ There 
are numerous instances, especially in New Jersey, in which 
the Governor, by proclamation or ordinance, regulated the 
fees.^^ The Assembly of New Jersey presented a memorial 
to Lord Combury in 1707 claiming the right to help regu- 
late fees, since its denial was directl^^ repugnant to the 
Magna Charta and even to the Governor's instructions. 
The fees established by the Assembly were rejected by the 
Crown, and a list proclaimed by the Governor.^^ Com- 
plaints of a similar nature were also made in other colo- 
nies.^^ Subsequently, in 1757, the Board of Trade held 
that the instruction of the Governor of North Carolina 
^^ which is also given to other Governors has never been 
considered as operating to prevent the (regulation of fees) 
by Act of Assembly, on the contrary acts have been passed 
in almost all the Colonies for this purpose, many of which 
have been confirmed by the Crown." Those which were 
repealed provided ^'improper" fees, according to com- 
plaints made to the Board. ^^ 

Whether established by the Governor in council or as 
was the general practice by the Assembly, fees were 

38 Osgood, American Colonies, II, 362-365. 

39 N. H. Prov. Papers, I, 454, 600; N. J. Archives, 1st series, V, 
338, 379; XIV, 260, 388; Md. Archives, Proceedings of the Assembly, 
1637-1664, 162-164; ibid, 1666-1676, 176; ibid, 1700-1704, 401; N. 
Y. Col. Doc, V, 170. 

40 K J. Archives, 1st series III, 176, 327; V, 338. 

41 N. Y. Col. Doc, V, 296, 298, 359 ; Col. Rec of N. C, III, 151 ; 
Col. Laws of N. Y., I, 623. 

42 Col. Rec of N. C, V, 750; Paper, North Carolina, 193, 194. 
The Board of Trade drafted an additional instruction to Governors 
in 1764, requiring them to transmit copies of fees, because "frequent 
complaints have been heretofore made, that exorbitant Fees have been 
demanded and taken in the public offices in several of our Colonies. 
. . ."— N. J. Archives, 1st series, IX, 440, 593, 608; N. Y. Col. 
Doc, VII, 889, 921 ; Pa. Archives, 4th series, III, 344. 



PORT REGULATIONS 115 

granted to many of the public officers in the several colo- 
nies, and indeed formed the principal, if not the sole source 
of income of at least those connected with the customs 
administration or the port regulations. Many acts were 
passed and fees were provided as soon as the various cus- 
toms and naval offices were created. Among those receiv- 
ing port fees in most of the colonies mention may be made 
of the collector of the customs, the naval officer, the Gov- 
ernor and the Secretary of the province, and the comp- 
troller.*^ The amount of fees to these officials varied in 
the several colonies; in general the number of officials be- 
came more numerous toward the Revolution.** Owing to 

*3 The list varied somewhat in each colony, depending chiefly upon 
the extent of its tariff and shipping legislation. The powder re- 
ceiver's fees, while strictly speaking port fees, were not included as 
a rule in the general acts regulating the fees of public officials. 
He usually received a small percentage on the powder money col- 
lected. Nor must we fail to include the pilotage fees in the list of 
port charges. Among other officials may be mentioned the surveyor, 
searcher and treasurer, included by South Carolina in 1716, and in 
some instances in other colonies. — Cooper, Statutes of S. C, III, 414. 

44 To show the scope of these port fees, and at the same time the 
general trend of the colonies concerning these fees, we may take the 
law enacted in 1748 by New Jersey. For signing the ship's register 
the Governor was to receive 10s. if the ship was over 20 tons burden, 
and 5s. if under that burden. In several of the colonies the fee was 
graduated according as the vessel was undecked or decked, but the 
law of New Jersey followed the usual custom. Furthermore, the 
other colonies usually required the Secretary to sign his name to the 
register, in addition to that of the Governor, and for this function he 
received the same fee as did the Governor. The Governor, under 
this law also received a fee of 10s. for a *'sea Pass," which permitted 
the vessel to sail out to sea, past the fort at the entrance of the har- 
bor ; and, finally, a fee of 12s. for a bill of health. The sea pass was 
generally issued by the Secretary in the other colonies; while the bill 
of health was usually issued in other colonies by the health officer 
where there was one; otherwise, by the collector or naval officer. 

The naval officer's fees in this New Jersey act provided for the 
payment by the shipmaster of 6s. if the vessel came from Europe or 
the West Indies, or cleared to that destination, and 3s. if from "New 
England, etc." The policy of the other colonies differed somewhat 
in this respect, for there the naval officer's fees were based on the 



116 PORT REGULATIONS 

the difference in the value of the money in the several 
colonies, it is difficult to make any noteworthy compar- 
isons of the fees actually provided. The Assembly of North 
Carolina claimed that the fees in that colony were certainly 
much higher than in Virginia, which the Governor denied 
in a paper sent to that body in April, ITSl."*^ In an at- 
tempt to provide a bill of fees in 1745, a conference com- 
mittee of the two houses in Maryland was constituted. 
The members from the lower house insisted that the fees 
established in Virginia and Pennsylvania should be used 
as a guide, to which the members of the upper house re- 
fused on the ground that the fees in Pennsylvania were 
paid in money at the time of the service without any 
expense for collection, while in Virginia the larger popu- 

tonnage, as well as the destination of the ship. The collector's 
fees for entering or for clearing vessels from Europe or the West 
Indies was 15s.; and from New England, 10s. A comparison of this 
act with the acts of the other colonies, as regards fees of the naval 
officer and collector, shows us that the act of New Jersey was some- 
what unusual in this respect. The general practice was to allow the 
same fees to the naval officer for clearing or entering a vessel, as to 
the collector. The reason for a divergence from this policy was due 
probably to the fact that the naval officer received a compensating 
income from the fees for issuing permits and certificates. 

The permits and certificates of the act of New Jersey, however, 
do not by any means represent a complete list of those required in 
other colonies. In this act the naval officer received 18d. for a per- 
mit to load or to unload a cargo; 10s. for the register of a vessel 
trading to foreign ports, and 7s. 6d. for a coasting vessel; 2s. for 
recording the register; 2s. 6d. for endorsing it; 3s. for a cocquet; 5s. 
for a bill of stores; 7s. 6d. for a bill of health; 2s. 6d. for bond for 
enumerated goods; Is. 6d. for cancelling it; and finally, 2s. 6d. for 
a permit of a vessel to go to and from New York or Pennsylvania. 
Among the certificates for which fees were demanded by other colo- 
nies, mention may be made of the certificate issued to show that bond 
had been entered according to the provisions of the Navigation Act; 
a certificate for naval stores; and also fees for each oath adminis- 
tered, and for filing bond to observe all navigation regulations of 
the colony, as well as observing all embargoes. — Allinson, Acts of the 
Assembly, 160. 

45 Col. Rec. of N. C, III, 157, 265, 267. 



PORT REGULATIONS 117 

lation made a comparison undesirable.*^ Georgia in 1755 
took the fees established in South Carolina as a basis, 
reducing all of them by ten per cent.*"^ During the years 
immediately preceding the Revolution some of the fees at 
least were considered to be too high and in consequence 
attempts were made to lower them, as in the case of Rhode 
Island in 1764.*^ The following year an act of Parlia- 
ment forbade the colonies to reduce the fees of the col- 
lector or any other official of his Majesty's customs below 
the rates prevailing September 29, 1764.*^ With the Revo- 
lution, some of the fees were discarded. 

In some instances, instead of establishing separate fees 
for the various administrative acts required in entering 
and clearing a vessel, it was the practice to charge a defi- 
nite sum for all services rendered. Virginia had such a 
law in 1679, which allowed the collector 15s. for vessels 
under twenty tons burden and 30s. for those over twenty 
tons, ^'in full payment for his fees of entering, clearing, 
license to trade, and for takeing such bonds as are by law 
enjoyned to be given and taken at the entering and clear- 
ing of ships or other vessells, tradeing thither." Such a 
method of settling fees, however, was unusual.^^ Coast- 
ing vessels trading within the colony were frequently ex- 
empted, especially those of about thirty tons burden or 
less since they were not usually supposed to have dutiable 

4«Mereness, Maryland as a Proprietary Province, 385, 386. 

47 Col. Kec. of Ga., VII, 62-87. 

« Col. Rec. of R. I., VI, 413; Arnold, History of R. L, II, 252. 

40 5 George III, c. 45, sec. xxvii; cf. N. J. Archives, 1st series, IX, 
440. 

soHening, Statutes of Vir., II, 443. North Carolina granted the 
comptroller 7s. 6d. in 1722 for entering and clearing a ship and all 
other fees relating to his office; Pennsylvania, in 1752, provided a 
fee of 27s. to the collector and naval officer "in full for all necessary 
papers and other charges"; and Delaware similarly provided a fee 
of 30s. for the naval office in 1769.— State Rec. of N. C, XXIII, 179; 
XXV, 196; Pa. Statutes at Large, V, 161. 



118 PORT REGULATIONS 

goods which would have to be entered, and the regular 
port fees would have proved very burdensome upon them 
on account of their numerous short trips from port to 
port.^^ Furthermore, vessels owned in the province were 
occasionally required to pay only a portion of the fees. 
Pennsylvania in 1710 provided that vessels owned in that 
province should pay three-fourths of the fees granted to 
the secretary, collector, naval officer and comptroller.^^ 
In 1717 Maryland provided that vessels of her inhab- 
itants should pay one-half the regular fees, while Virginia 
made a similar provision in 1748.^^ 

pmOTAGE. 

Appointment and Duties of Pilots, It is a noteworthy 
fact that the southern colonies as a group provided for 
pilotage more generally and systematically than the mid- 
dle or northern colonies. The apparent reason is to be 
found in the nature of the settlements of these districts. 
Those in the north were usually along the sea coast, or on 
rivers easy of access to the sea; those of the south were 
more scattered and usually further inland, and could be 
reached only by going through tortuous and shifting inlets 
and shallow rivers. Moreover, since most of the colonial 
shipping was owned in northern ports, it is probable that 

51 See, e. g. Watkins, Digest of the Laws of Ga., 194; Pa. Statutes 
at Large, VII, 42; VIII, 125, 278; Acts and Resolves of Mass., I, 
164, 274; K H. Province Papers, III, 103 104. 

52 Reenacted subsequently. — Pa. Statutes at Large, II, 331 ; III, 96. 

53 Bacon, Laws of Md., 1717, chap. I; Hening, Statutes of Vir., VI, 
94. Massachusetts in 1698 provided a fixed sum per annum in lieu 
of the fees for entering or clearing coasting vessels of the New Eiig- 
land colonies, the Jerseys, New York or Pennsylvania. — Acts and 
Resolves, I, 335, 336. It was disallowed by the Crown in 1700, for 
it established seven ports of entry, which were considered too many, 
besides being an apparent limitation on the power of the commis- 
sioners of the customs to establish ports for the enumerated com- 
modities. 



PORT REGULATIONS 119 

the masters of such vessels knew the northern waters thor- 
oughly and were not so dependent upon pilots as at the 
southern ports.^* 

Pilotage laws were enacted in the several colonies with 
the probable exception of New Hampshire, Rhode Island, 
New Jersey and Maryland. There was no uniformity in 
the appointment of pilots throughout the colonial period. 
The early legislative acts usually provided that the Gov- 
ernor should appoint the pilots, as in New York and South 
Carolina.^^ The general practice, however, was to pro- 
vide a special or permanent commission which examined 
the candidates for pilots. 

The duties of pilots were generally prescribed by legis- 
lative enactment, although the commissions were often 
allowed to make the minor regulations concerning the 
examination of candidates, the stationing of pilot boats, 
etc.^^ The regulation of the pilotage fee^ was almost 
invariably retained in the hands of the legislative body. 
The real function of the boards or commissions, therefore, 
was to act as an administrative body. Upon boarding a 
vessel often the first duty of the pilot was to inquire about 
the health of the crew and passengers, in accordance with 
the quarantine regulations.^^ 

5* Hawk, History of N. C, II, 164, 165, 269-271; Bruce, Econ. 
History of Vir., II, 352; Pa. Archives, 4th series, I, 475. 

55 Virginia, in 1660, provided for the appointment of pilots by 
the Assembly. — Hening, Statutes, II, 35. 

5«Col. Laws of N. Y., IV, 173; Cooper, Statutes of S. C, III, 225, 
678, 713; IV, 431; Hening, Statutes of Vir., 490; VII, 580. 

57 It would be manifestly impossible to give any details of the fees 
actually established in the various acts. One or two acts may be 
cited here by way of illustration. The fees in South Carolina, in 
1723, were as follows: for piloting a vessel into Cooper River before 
Charleston, or vice versa, if under six feet draught, 1£, IDs. proclama- 
tion money; seven feet, 2£; eight feet, 2£. 10s; nine feet, 3£.; ten 
feet, 3£. 10s.; eleven feet, 4£.; twelve feet, 4£. 10s.; twelve feet and 
a half, 5£.; thirteen feet, 5£. lOs.; thirteen feet and a half, 6£.; 
fourteen feet, 6£. lOs.; fourteen feet and a half, 7£.; fifteen feet, 8£.; 



120 PORT REGULATIONS 

A Board of Port Wardens was established in Philadel- 
phia in 1766 as the result of attempts to secure efficient 
pilots for that port.^* The Board was empowered to exam- 
ine persons who desired to become pilots, but in no case was 
it allowed to make a person a *^ first-rate" pilot until he 
had served a regular apprenticeship. The Board was also 
given the right to make other regulations concerning 
pilots, except to fix fees. A Master and 'Hhree or more" 
Wardens were appointed for the port of New York, under 
the act of 1757.^^ Their duties were similar to those pre- 
scribed by Pennsylvania nine years later, except that the 
pilot was not required to serve an apprenticeship. Sim- 
ilar regulations were provided even earlier in several of 
the southern colonies. Commissioners were appointed in 
1751 in North Carolina to provide for the examination 
and supervision of pilots on Cape Fear River; while in 
the following year the commissioners for the ports of 
Bath, Beaufort, and Roanoke were given similar powers.^^ 
South Carolina provided seven commissioners for regulat- 
ing pilotage and issuing licenses for the port of Charles- 
ton in 1734.^^ In Georgia commissioners were estab- 
lished in three districts in 1762.^^ Commissioners do not 
appear to have been provided in the other colonies having 

sixteen feet, 10£.; seventeen feet, 12£. 10s. Choice was given for 
payment in bills of South Carolina at current rates. — Cooper, Stat- 
utes, III, 225. In New York (1731) the following rates were en- 
acted between New York and Sandy Hook between April first and 
October first: vessels drawing ten feet, 3£.; eleven feet, 3£. 15s.; 
thirteen feet, 4£. 10s.; fourteen feet, 5£.; fifteen feet, 6£. ; sixteen 
feet, 7£. ; seventeen feet, 8£.; eighteen feet, 9£. During the winter 
months twenty shillings were added. — Col. Laws of N. Y., II, 700. 
Not all of the fees in other acts were as comprehensive as in the 
case of these just cited. 

58 Pa. Statutes at Large, VII, 19. 

59 Col. Laws of N. Y., IV, 173. 

60 The State Records of N. C, XXIIL, 355, 375. 

61 Nicholas Trott, Laws of the Province of S. C, 610. 
«2 Watkins, Digest of the Laws of Ga., 75. 



PORT REGULATIONS 121 

pilotage legislation, to supervise the examination of can- 
didates and the duties of pilots.^^ 

Compulsory and Optional Pilotage. The rates imposed 
on vessels for pilotage were usually according to the 
draught of the vessel.^* Moreover, these rates were as a 
rule compulsory, although the master of a vessel was often 
required to pay only half the regular rates upon refusing 
the services of a pilot. Of the colonies having pilotage 
laws, Delaware, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Vir- 
ginia did not provide for optional pilotage.^^ In the other 
colonies, the exemption of vessels from pilotage was not 
practiced to any extent except in New York. 

In that colony, optional pilotage was permitted as early 
as 1694,^^ on *^all such sloops as belong to this Province 
and are Coasters upon the main of North America which 
is to be understood to Extend from Pemiquid to Virginia 
inclusive." In 1726^^ it was further provided that mas- 
ters of vessels capable of piloting their own vessels in or 
out of the port of New York, were not required to employ 
pilots. In 1757, vessels under fifty tons in the coasting 
trade between New York and southward to Cape Fear 
were exempted from pilotage.^^ In 1775, however, pilot- 
age was made compulsory.^^ 

Georgia permitted optional pilotage to coasting vessels 

«3 In 1762, Virginia provided that the courts should appoint ex- 
aminers for pilots. 

64 Cooper, Statutes of S. C, III, 225; IV, 431; Col. Laws of N. 
Y., II, 700, 949; III, 678, 753; Hening, Statutes of Vir., VII, 580. 
In one colony (that of New York) higher rates were also imposed 
for piloting vessels during the winter season than in the summer 
season, as at present. 

«5 The act of Pennsylvania of 1766 applied to vessels of more than 
fifty tons burden. 

6« Col. Laws of N. Y., I, 324. 

«7 Ibid, II, 302. Reenacted at various dates : II, 700, 949 ; III, 
678, 753. 

«8lbid, IV, 173. Continued, IV, 278, 337, 523, 652. 

69 Col. Laws of N. Y., V, 746. 



122 PORT REGULATIONS 

in 1762, and in the event that they took a pilot on board, 
the regular fees were collected.^® South Carolina desired 
to ease the port charges on coasting vessels trading from 
port to port within the colony in 1738, and hence exempted 
such vessels from the necessity of taking pilots on boardJ^ 
Ten years later ''decked periaugas" and coasting vessels 
were exempted when ''coming or going coastwise "^ — a 
provision which was subsequently reenacted/^ 

The practice of exempting coasting vessels, especially 
those owned or trading within the colony, was due to 
several causes. The masters of such vessels were familiar 
with the harbors and rivers; their vessels were compara- 
tively small and could more readily enter a port; and it 
was not deemed expedient to burden the shipping with too 
many dues for fear of injuring the trade of the colony.*^^ 

70 Watkins, Digest of the Laws of Ga., 75. 

71 Cooper, Statutes of S. C, III, 491. 

72 Ibid, III, 712. 

73 The reason for providing pilotage is well expressed in an act of 
New York, which stated that ". . . this Act is Calculated and 
Intended more immediately for the advantage and preservation of 
strangers than Vessels belonging to this Port the masters of which 
are many of them able and Experienced Pilots and Kequire little or 
no Assistance." — Col. Laws of N. Y., IV, 337. 



CHAPTER VI 

COMMERCIAL POLICY FROM THE REVOLUTION 

TO 1789 

COMMERCIAL LEGISLATION BY THE STATES. 

Embargoes^ During the Revolution. The outbreak of 
the Revolution severed the political and commercial rela- 
tions with England, which had existed for more than a 
century. For the next six or seven years the vicissitudes 
of war gave little time or opportunity for trade, except 
in munitions of war and the necessaries of life.^ The 
commercial restrictions which had been imposed upon the 
colonies had narrowed their trade chiefly to England, 
hence during the continuance of war there was little 
opportunity to create new markets. Moreover, the pres- 
ence of British war vessels on our coast and in the paths 
of trade made these efforts extremely hazardous. The 
shipping of the several states, however, began to find 
profitable, although risky, employment by preying upon 
English commerce.^ 

War brought into prominence expedients to secure and 
to retain provisions, necessaries of life and munitions of 

1 Attempts were made to open up trade with French merchants 
and others on the continent of Europe — fish, rice and tobacco were 
perhaps the chief articles exported — ^but the principal trade was 
with the West Indies. — N. H. State Papers, VIII, 564; Deane Papers, 
II, 295; Weeden, Economic and Social History of N. Eng., 773-775, 
779, 780. Sparks, Dip. Corres. of Amer. Revol. (1829), XII, 418. 

2 Ibid, 770 et seq. Hildreth estimates the number of British ves- 
sels captured during the first year at 350, valued with their cargoes 
at five million dollars. — ^History of the U. S., Ill, 177. 

123 



124 POLICY FROM REVOLUTION TO 1789 

war. Some encouragement was given to industries,^ but 
the main emphasis was placed upon embargoes and upon 
laws prohibiting engrossing or forestalling. The first 
Congress unanimously resolved that after December first 
of that year goods of Great Britain or Ireland should not 
be imported into the colonies, and by a further resolution, 
all commodities except rice and tobacco, should not be 
exported after September 10, 1775, to Great Britain, Ire- 
land or the West Indies unless the grievances of the colo- 
nies were redressed before that time. Non-intercourse was 
to be extended to any colony which did not adhere to the 
association. In the meantime war broke out, and the 
resolution was changed to permit the importation of 
munitions of war.* 

Embargoes were imposed in each state, usually for com- 
paratively short periods of time, by the Assembly or the 
Governor ; ^ yet unlike those imposed during the colonial 
period, it became essential at times to provide for their 
enforcement through committees of safety.® The earlier 
embargoes in the northern colonies were imposed in the 
main for economic motives, hence included chiefly food- 
stuffs. Exceptions were nevertheless permitted as a rule 
to ship's stores, and to such trade as was permitted by 
license from the Governor or other duly authorized offi- 
cial.^ There was scarcely any harmony in the acts of 
neighboring states. In fact, several of the embargoes were 
the result of similar provisions in a neighboring state. 

3 See, e. g., Col. Rec. of N. C, X, V; Col. Rec. of R. I., 22, 237. 

4 Journals of Cong. (1800), I, 31-35, Aug. 1, 1775. For the ob- 
servance of the "Association" in the several colonies, see Force, 
American Archives, 4th series, I, II. 

5 Congress and committees of safety also provided embargoes. — 
Journals of Cong. (18Q0), June 14, 1775. Sumner, Finances of Amer. 
Revol., I, 132. 

«N. H. State Papers, VIII, 412. 

THening, Statutes of Vir., IX, 386, 530, 533; Public Rec. of Conn., 
XV, 314, 414, 661; Sumner, Finances of Amer. Revol., I, chap. VI. 



POLICY FROM REVOLUTION TO 1789 125 

Congress, in 1779, recommended the authorities of Penn- 
sylvania and the southern states to permit Massachusetts 
and Rhode Island to secure grain and flour. The appeal to 
Pennsylvania at least was unsuccessful for it was antic- 
ipated that any surplus grain would be wanted for the 
army.® The embargoes of neighboring colonies bore par- 
ticularly hard on Rhode Island.® 

There was furthermore a political motive back of 
numerous embargoes, for it became necessary to resort to 
this expedient to assure provisions for the army or to 
secure sufficient men for the army or to man the war 
vessels. To attain the latter purpose embargoes were 
placed upon shipping, for the residents of sea-port towns 
often preferred to volunteer for the numerous privateers 
which were to be found all along the coast.^^ 

Tarijf Legislation. The changes in the tariff policy sub- 
sequent to the Revolution, and prior to the inauguration 
of federal control, furnish us vrith the most important 
and noteworthy phase of commercial legislation. The 
states became sovereign and, in consequence, had the power 
to regulate commerce.^^ The failure of the commercial 
provisions in the Articles of Confederation clearly illus- 
trates this view. 

Most of the acts imposing duties on goods brought into 
the colonies expired or were repealed with the Revolu- 
tion, since trade was practically suspended. Maryland re- 
pealed all duties on imports and exports during 1778 and 
1779, with the exception of the duty on negro slaves.^^ 
Virginia repealed her duty on tobacco in 1776, but a year 

8 Journals of Cong. (1800), V, 57; Col. Rec. of Pa., XI, 682. 

9 Sumner, Finances of Amer. Revol., I, 134-137. 

10 Col. Rec. of R. I., VIII, 55, 217; Col. Rec. of Pa., XI, 761, 763, 
766. 

11 Baldwin, Constitutional View, 181; Jefferson, Writings (Ford 
ed.), IV, 55. 

12 Laws of Md. (1765-1784), Feb., 1777, chap. 18. 



126 POLICY FROM REVOLUTION TO 1789 

later the necessity for revenue caused a duty of 10s. per 
hogshead to be imposed on that commodity.^^ Pennsyl- 
vania recommenced to impose duties in the latter part of 
1780,^^ and from that time until the adoption of the 
Constitution, most of the other states provided imposts.^** 
Peace brought with it the necessity of providing revenue 
to meet the current needs of government and the extinc- 
tion of the war debts. Duties were therefore imposed to 
furnish a portion of this revenue. The duties were low 
at first, and in the southern states, perhaps, did not go 
beyond the stage of purely revenue measures.^® Penn- 
sylvania, Virginia, Massachusetts, New York and Mary- 
land enacted comparatively numerous tariff laws. With 
the exception of South Carolina, and perhaps Pennsylva- 
nia, these states were the same that had been relatively 
active during the colonial era in enacting tariff legislation. 
Although the reason for most of these acts was revenue, 
motives of discrimination and protection were prominent 
in those of the northern states, and to a less extent in the 

i3Hening, Statutes, IX, 162, 361. 

14 Laws of Pa., 423, ch. 190. 

15 Delaware and New Jersey did not levy import duties, but re- 
lied on internal taxes, as during the colonial period. To encourage 
her trade. New Jersey provided free ports in 1783 for the import and 
export of all goods, "clear of all Duties, Customs or Imposition, of 
any Species or Denomination.^' In 1784, Perth Amboy and Burling- 
ton were constituted free ports for twenty-five years, and goods were 
to pay duties only if levied for the use of the United States. Free 
ports were also established for Delaware in 1786. — Wilson, Acts of N. 
J. (1783), 330; Paterson, Laws of N. J. (1800), 52; Laws of Del. 
(1797), II, 831. Georgia enacted one law imposing duties on the 
importation of commodities and negroes in 1784. It was amended 
two years later and repealed in 1787. — Watkins, Digest of the Laws 
of Ga., 289, 325. 

i« Madison, Letters and Writings (1867), I, 271; Calendar of 
Vir. State Papers, IV, 147, 240, 264; Pa. Archives, IX, 206; Hill, 
Tariff Policy, 43; Hening, Statutes of Vir., XI, 375. Several of the 
rates which were imposed in the southern states discriminated 
against British goods and ships. 



POLICY FROM REVOLUTION TO 1789 127 

southern states. An explanation of these motives may be 
found in the conditions existing at that period. The ces- 
sation of war was the occasion for importing large quan- 
tities of British goods on credit.^^ The states were 
consequently being rapidly drained of their specie, and 
what domestic manufactures they had were almost ex- 
tterminated. Furthermore the obstruction of the West 
India trade was a serious menace to American commerce. 
John Adams probably voiced the current sentiments when 
he stated that the West India Islands ''can neither do 
without us, nor we without them. ' ' ^® Trade with the 
West Indies during the colonial period was absolutely 
essential to pay for English manufactures. It was con- 
sidered to be just as essential after the Revolution. Yet 
the ports of the British West Indies were closed to Amer- 
ican vessels by an order in council of July 2, 1783, and 
thenceforth trade could be carried on only by British 
subjects.^^ Notwithstanding the efforts which had been 
made to secure freedom of trade with France and con- 
tinental countries, the bulk of the trade still continued 
with England. Hence, the British repressive measures 
(although merely a logical extension of the commercial 
system then in vogue, since the American states had to be 
regarded as independent and therefore as alien) had a 
close and important bearing on the commercial legislation 
of the states. 

17 Am. Hist. Assn., 1896, I, 610, 611, 719 et seq.; Boston Inde- 
pendent Chronicle, April 21 and 28, also July 15, 1785, extracts in 
Hill, Stages of Tariff Policy, appdx., 140-142; Mag. Amer. History, 
VIII, 351-355. 

18 Adams, Works, VIII, 74 ; Report of a committee of the Privy 
Council, January, 1791, 10 et seq. 

18 Order in Council in Adams, Works, VIII, 97, 98; Am. State 
Papers, Commerce and Navigation, II, 251. There were some who 
believed these restrictions were not intended to be enforced, espe- 
cially since the West Indies were more dependent upon the produce 
of the states than vice versa. — Sparks, Life of Morris, I, 267; 
Staples, R. I. in the Cont. Cong., 461, 462. 



128 POLICY FROM REVOLUTION TO 1789 

. Discrimination by higher duties on goods imported in 
; British vessels was most prominent in the New England 
I states (except Connecticut which invited commerce by a 
j comparatively free trade policy in respect to England) 
■ and New York.^^ These were also the states which were 
barred from the principal market for their commodities. 
New Hampshire imposed double duties on goods imported 
in foreign vessels, and an additional duty of 6d. per bushel 
of salt in 1785. British vessels were not to load or un- 
load any goods of the growth or manufacture of any of the 
United States in a port of New Hampshire. ^^ Rhode 
Island imposed a duty of 7%% on goods imported in 
British bottoms, while goods imported in other vessels 
paid only one-third that amount. Shortly afterward goods 
of the United States could not be exported in British ves- 
sels, nor were British vessels to enter any port of the 
state.^^ New York imposed double duties on rum and 
other distilled liquors imported in vessels with British 
registers (4d. per gallon) ; ^^ and after July 1, 1785, all 
goods imported in British vessels were to pay double 
duties. The latter explanatory act was the cause of con- 

20 Collection of Papers on Navigation and Trade (1807), 57, 58. 
This report gives a summary of the discriminations. 

21 N". H. State Papers, XX, 502. A motion (Feb. 17, 1786) in 
the lower house in New Hampshire called for the suspension of the 
navigation act until similar laws should be provided in all the New 
England states and New York. The Assembly shortly after provided 
a bill imposing duties on foreign goods, and even for raising revenue 
by an export duty. Neither became a law. The Governor then 
urged the importance of revising the import duties, and the Assem- 
bly replied that domestic manufactures, and the discouraging of the 
importation of unnecessary and superfluous commodities would re- 
ceive their earliest attention. — Ibid, XX, 504, 517, 518, 618, 627. 

22 The duty on foreign hemp was removed unless imported in 
British vessels.— Col. Rec. of R. I., X, 106, 121, 141. Rhode Island 
was practically forced to suspend her act (February, 1786) until 
Connecticut should provide similar legislation. — Ibid, X, 170. 

23 Laws of N. Y. (1785), chap. 7. 



POLICY FROM REVOLUTION TO 1789 129 

siderable trouble and discrimination by neighboring 
states.^* Maryland was one of the first states to discrim- 
inate against British goods, for by an act of 1783 such 
goods were to pay 2^ more than other goods. Maryland 
further instructed her delegates to Congress to ''agree 
and ratify'' any measures investing that body with power 
to prevent the importation of foreign goods imported in 
vessels other than those owned and navigated by citizens of 
the United States.-^ Virginia, smarting under the British 
order in council, granted a more specific power to Con- 
gress especially so far as the British West India trade 
was concerned.-^ In 1786 wine was required to pay an 
additional duty of 4d. per gallon when imported, except 
French wine imported in vessels owned by French or 
American citizens. This act was aimed at the English 
trade.^^ North Carolina had already provided an in- 
crease of 20% in the duties on goods imported in vessels 
of citizens not having a treaty of commerce with the 

24 Ibid, chap. 34. The act provided that goods other than the 
produce and manufacture of any of the United States imported from 
Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey or Pennsylvania were to be 
liable to the same duties as those imported in any British vessel, 
unless it was proved to the satisfaction of the collector that these 
goods were not brought into the said states in British vessels. 

25 Laws of Md., 1765-1784, ch. 29 (December session). 

2« "That the United States in Congress assembled, shall be, and 
they are hereby authorized and empowered to prohibit the importa- 
tion (of goods) of the growth or produce of the British West India 
islands, into these United States, in British vessels, or to adopt any 
other mode which may most effectually tend to coimteract the de- 
signs of Great Britain, with respect to the American commerce, so 
long as the said restrictions shall be continued on the part of Great 
Britain. — ^Hening, Statutes, XI, 313. A similar grant was made 
by South Carolina in 1784, on condition that all of the States would 
vest this power in Congress. — Cooper, Statutes, IV, 596. 

27 The following year, on complaint of Dutch merchants, goods in 

Dutch vessels and those of countries in treaty relations with the 

United States were placed on the same footing as those imported in 

vessels of any of the United States. — Hening, Statutes, XII, 290, 

] 614; Calendar of Vir. State Papers, IV, 298. 



130 POLICY FROM REVOLUTION TO 1789 

United States.^® South Carolina did not discriminate 
to any extent against British commodities. Only brown 
or clayed sugars from the British Islands paid 2s. per hun- 
dredweight in 1783, while those from the dominions of 
France, Spain, Holland, Denmark and Sweden paid Is. 
6d. ; on refined sugar the rates were Id. and i^d. respec- 
tively.^® Early in 1787 wine from the British dominions 
was also forced to pay a comparatively high duty.^® 

Indirectly, if not directly, the encouragement of direct 
trade to the Orient,^^ and the lower duties on goods from 
nations having commercial treaties with the United 
States,^^ may be viewed as a discrimination against British 
trade.^^ 

28 state Rec. of N. C, XXIV, 718. The duty of two per cent on 
salt was also commuted to 2d. per bushel when imported in Amer- 
ican vessels, or in those of nations having commercial treaties with 
the United States. 

29lleenacted in 1784.— Cooper, Statutes, IV, 676, 607. In 1787, 
the duties were increased to 2s. 6d. for brown sugar and l%d. for 
refined sugar from the British possessions; Is. 6d. and %d. respec- 
tively from the other dominions, to which Prussia was added. 

30 Ibid, V, 8. 

31 Only a few acts of this nature were passed. Thus an act of 
Pennsylvania provided that stone or earthenware should pay a duty 
of five per cent; while porcelain was exempted when imported di- 
rectly from the Cape of Good Hope, China or India in vessels built 
and owned in the United States. The same exemption was pro- 
vided for teas: otherwise the rates were 6d. per pound for hyson, 4d. 
for fouchong, and 2d. for other teas. — ^Laws of Pa., 1787, 241. An 
earlier act in that state had ihiposed a duty of 6d. on hyson and 2d. 
on other kinds when imported from Europe or the West Indies — 
practically a discrimination against English trade. — Ibid, 1785, 669. 
New York also granted lower duties on tea imported from Asia in 
vessels built or owned by her citizens. — Laws of N. Y., 1787, chap. 
81. 

32 In part such duties were expected to create or establish markets 
with other countries besides Great Britain. — ^Hening, Statutes of 
Vir., XII, 290, 514; Cooper, Statutes of S. C, IV, 576, 607; Treaties 
and Conventions of the U. S. (1889) : treaty of 1778 with France, 
articles 2, 3, 4, 30; with the Netherlands in 1782, articles 2, 3, 9; 
etc. The London Chronicle, December 3, 1782; Sheffield, Observa- 
tions on the Commerce of the Amer. States (1784), 201-207, 263-266. 

33 An occasional discrimination can also be found against goods 



POLICY FROM REVOLUTION TO 1789 131 

Besides the discriminations against British trade, two 
other tariff features evolved out of the conditions then 
existing. There was a desire on the part of several states 
to encourage manufactures. Comparatively high duties 
were placed upon goods from foreign countries.iJ It 
was protection in a very mild form which was 
thus instituted by northern states about 1785 to en- 
courage home manufactures. Many of the articles, like 
shoes and clothing, had been made to a greater or less 
extent during the colonial period and the Revolution. 
Compared with the protective duties of the constitutional 
period, the significance of these attempts dwindles away, 
but if compared with the colonial period, we note at once 
the change which was introduced. Furthermore, encour- 
agement to home manufactures was contrary to the ideas 
of the leading statesmen of the time — Adams, Madison, 
Franklin and Jefferson. The only prominent statesmen 
who upheld aid to manufacture at that time were Wash- 
ington and Hamilton. ^^ 

In several instances the duties on articles were increased 
to afford a larger revenue and yet encourage home man- 
ufactures. Thus, New Hampshire provided incidental 
protection in 1786.^^ A 15% ad valorem duty was im- 
posed upon gold, silver, jewelry, silks, and other luxuries, 

from other nations, as in the duty on wine and fruit from the Por- 
tuguese dominions, because flour was prohibited. — Laws of Pa., 1785, 
669. 

34 Hill, Early Stages of Tariff Policy, 91, 92; Madison, Works, I, 
271. 

35 Hill, Early Stages of Tariff Policy, 75-90; Elliott, Tariff Con- 
troversy, 34 et seq. 

3« The preamble stated that "the laying duties on articles of the 
produce and manufacture of foreign countries, will not only produce 
a considerable revenue to the State, but will tend to encourage the 
manufacture of many of these articles within the same." The act 
was continued two years later because it had been found "very bene- 
ficial."— Laws of N, H., 1776-1789, 152, 159. 



132 POLICY FROM REVOLUTION TO 1789 

and a similar duty upon boots and shoes, hats, saddles, 
furniture, wrought iron, nails and several other articles ; 
on china, earthen and stoneware, the duty was 10% ; on 
wines, beer, porter and ale, 5%. Pitch, tar and turpen- 
tine^paid 3s. per barrel; and 2%% ad valorem was im- 
posed on all non-enumerated goods. Massachusetts pro- 
vided incidental protection as early as 1784 when a duty 
of 7%% was imposed on candles, soap, linseed oil, leather, 
beef and pork; and 12%% on harness, saddles, boots and 
shoes. Luxuries were also required to pay similar du- 
ties.^^ The following year protection was carried fur- 
ther, and the duties on some articles were as high as 
25%, while high specific duties were imposed on other 
commodities.^^ In 1786, home industries were encour- 
aged by prohibiting entirely the importation of many 
articles not the growth or manufacture of any of the 
United States, and articles which could be imported paid 
duties ranging from 5% to 15%.^^ The protection, to 
her industries was probably more complete in Massachu- 
setts than in any other state.^^ The Assembly of Rhode 

3T Laws of Mass., 1783-1789, 149.— Cf. Am. Hist. Assn., 1896, I, 
731. 

38 The preamble of this act stated that "it is highly necessary for 
the welfare and happiness of all states, and more especially such 
as are republican, to encourage agriculture, the improvement of raw 
materials and manufactures, a spirit of industry, frugality and econ- 
omy, and at the same time to discourage luxury and extravagance 
of every kind." — Ibid, 300. This enactment followed shortly after 
the resolutions of the Boston merchants, and of the tradesmen of 
that town. The latter body provided for a committee which should 
send a petition to the state legislature "setting forth the difficulties 
the manufacturers of this town labor under, by the importation of 
certain articles . . . and praying a prohibition, or that such 
duties may be laid, as will effectually promote the manufacture of 
the same.'' — Boston Independent Chronicle, April 21 and April 28, 
1785; also in Hill, Early Stage of Tariff Policy, appdx., 140-143. 

39 Laws of Mass., 1783-1789, 529. 

40 The evidence of attempts to furnish any protection to home in- 
dustries in Connecticut is not clear. It is probable that her duties 



POLICY FROM REVOLUTION TO 1789 133 

Island appointed a committee in 1785 to draft a bill for 
imposing additional duties upon hats, shoes, boots, and 
such other articles of foreign manufacture as could be 
made to advantage within the state.^^ Shortly afterward 
an act was passed imposing specific duties upon a long list 
of articles, and on others ad valorem duties ranging as high 
as 25%.*2 

Of the middle states. New York and Pennsylvania also 
provided incidental protection. From 1784, New York 
imposed rather high specific duties on some goods of 
European origin (hats, boots, saddles, chairs, coaches, 
etc.), and in addition a small ad valorem duty on non- 
enumerated goods. The ad valorem duties were increased 
in 1787, varying from 5% to 10^; and in the following 
year 'Ho encourage manufactures, and by every whole- 
some regulation, consistent with the spirit of liberty, to 
repress the further progress of luxury and extra^vagance ^ ' 
a further duty of 8% ad valorem ^^ was imposed upon 
numerous articles of women's apparel, jewelry, carpets, 
glassware, etc. Moreover, further specific duties were 
imposed upon spikes, nails, shovels, hoes, painters' colors 
in oil and spirituous liquors. The protection granted by 
j Pennsylvania was probably more important. In 1785 it 
« was proposed 'Ho encourage and protect the Manufac- 

were dictated by motives of revenue and discrimination. In 1785 an 
ad valorem duty of 6% was imposed on non-enumerated goods, with 
specific duties on hats, boots, shoes, leather, saddles, rum and brown 
sugar. — Acts and Laws of Conn., 309. The following year an ad- 
ditional duty of %d. per pound was imposed on nails, unless made 
in the United States, while subsequent acts provided for a duty of 
6s. per hundred pounds value of hemp or cordage imported from 
foreign countries, and 3s. per quintal on fish. — Ibid, 346, 354. 

41 Col. Rec. of R. I., X, 89, 106. 

42 The act was changed somewhat a year later. — Ibid, X, 115, 150. 
The act of 1785 may be found in Hill, Early Stages of Tariff Policy, 
appdx., 145, 146. 

43 Laws of N. Y., March 22, 1784, chap. 10; November 18, 1784, 
chap. 7; April 11, 1787, chap. 81; March 12, 1788, chap. 72. 



134 POLICY FROM REVOLUTION TO 1789 

tures of this State, by laying additional Duties on the 
Importation of certain Manufactures which interfere with 
them." High specific duties were imposed upon many 
articles, while certain raw materials were exempted from 
all imposts. British steel, manufactures of iron, hats, 
clothing, books and some other articles paid a duty of 
10% ad valorem. Further ad valorem duties ranging 
from 5 to 7%% were imposed upon iron and steel, leather, 
and lumber for shipbuilding when imported from foreign 
countries.** This act is of importance in subsequent 
tariff legislation, since it formed the basis of the first 
federal act. 

The other tariff feature which necessarily developed out 
of the conditions of the time was the discrimination or 
retaliation against commodities imported from neighbor- 
ing states. Had it developed during the colonial period 
to any great extent, matters could have been adjusted by 
the home government. Now, with each state sovereign, 
there was scarcely any redress, for few agreements ex- 
isted which tended to check discrimination.*^ One outcome 
was the Annapolis convention, which led ultimately to 
the federal convention. Tenche Coxe made a statement 
September 13, 1786, at the Annapolis meeting that in 
several states duties imposed upon goods imported in ves- 
sels built or owned in other states of the confederation 
were greater than those imposed upon goods imported in 
vessels of the legislating state. Moreover, goods of the 
growth or manufacture of other states were charged with 
high duties, amounting in many instances to rates as high 
as those imposed on similar goods from foreign coun- 
tries.*® The New England states had imposed discrim- 

4* Laws of Pa., 785, 669; also in Hill, Early Stages of Tariff 
Policy, 146-150. 

45 Madison, Works, I, 216; Calendar of Vir. State Papers, III, 
192; IV, 280, 326-329; cf. also N. H. State Papers, XX, 197, 215. 

4« Calendar of Vir. State Papers, IV, 168, 169. In a letter to 



POLICY FROM REVOLUTION TO 1789 135 

mating duties on English goods, particularly when 
imported in English vessels. Connecticut, however, pur- 
sued an opposite policy and even imposed duties on goods 
from Massachusetts. The latter state at once protested 
and the Governor sent a complaint to the several states.*^ 
New York also imposed like duties on British goods 
brought in through a neighboring state as when imported 
directly.*^ Moreover, port fees and tonnage duties were 
imposed on vessels from Connecticut and New Jersey. 
This action increased the cost of the farm produce from 
these two states and aroused a spirit of retaliation. Con- 
necticut merchants at New London agreed to suspend all 
commercial dealings with New York for a year, and a fine 
of $250 was to be imposed for each violation. New Jer- 
sey taxed the property for the lighthouse which New 
York had erected at Sandy Hook, $1800 per annum.*^ 
These represent the more noteworthy instances of retalia- 
tion by the states. Notwithstanding their significance, 
we must not forget that such action was really exceptional, 
for it was usual during the period to exempt goods of the 
growth or produce of any of the United States from im- 
port duties by the legislating state. 

The tariff legislation of the period was further com- 
plicated by the use of export duties in two of the southern 
states — Maryland and Virginia. Duties on exports had 
been on the decline ever since the middle of the century; 

Jefferson (March 18, 1786), Madison stated that "When Massachu- 
setts set on foot a retaliation of the policy of Great Britain, Con- 
necticut declared her ports free. New Jersey served New York in 
the same way. And Delaware, I am told, has lately followed the 
example, in opposition to the commercial plans of Pennsylvania.'' — 
Works, I, 226. 

*7 Calendar of Vir. State Papers, IV, 60, 61; Madison, Works, I, 
216. 

*8 Laws of N. Y., March 15, 1785, chap. 34. 

49 Ibid, April 11, 1787, chap. 81; Fiske, Critical Period of Amer- 
ican History, 151, 152. 



136 POLICY FROM REVOLUTION TO 1789 

the reason for their retention in Maryland and Virginia was 
the necessity of securing revenue.^^ The latter had re- 
pealed her export duty on tobacco at the outbreak of the 
Revolution; Maryland, in 1777, discontinued her duties 
for two years.^^ Virginia imposed a duty of 10s. per 
hogshead of tobacco in 1777, and in the following year 
exempted tobacco exported to the French West Indies in 
accordance with a treaty between France and the United 
States. This duty was lowered subsequently, and an addi- 
tional duty of 6s. imposed in 1786 to provide revenue for 
the requisition of Congress.^^ Maryland imposed duties on 
wheat, flour and tobacco, while ten per cent rebate was 
allowed if the duty were paid in gold. Deductions were 
also allowed on vessels owned and navigated by the inhab- 
itants of the state.^^ There was even a tendency towards 
unity in export duties by these two states, for the Virginia 
Assembly passed a resolution in 1786 for like duties on 
imports and exports.^* The export duties of this period 
were, therefore, practically restricted to the two states 
which had provided similar legislation so actively during 
the colonial period. The controversy over the right of Con- 
gress to impose duties on exports was based, therefore, 
upon a power which was not exercised by a large majority 
of the states during the Confederacy. 

The tariff legislation of the period was actuated by 
three motives^ — revenue, protection and discrimination. 

50 Calendar of Vir. State Papers, IV, 147, 240, 264. 
siHening, Statutes of Vir., IX, 162; Laws of Md. (1765-1784), 
chap. 18, 1777. 

52 In 1782 the rate was 6s. and in 1783 it was only 4s. per hogs- 
head.— Hening, Statutes, IX, 361, 551; XI, 95, 201; XII, 288. 

53 The duties were as follows : 3d. per barrel of flour ; Id. per 
bushel of wheat; 2s. per hogshead of tobacco. — ^Laws of Md. (1765- 
1784), chap. 50, 1782; chap. 84, 1784. 

54 Calendar of Vir. State Papers, IV, 80. Robert Morris also pro- 
posed to Congress an export duty in a report submitted March, 1783, 
to provide revenue. 



POLICY FROM REVOLUTION TO 1789 137 

The protection afforded by the various acts was usually 
incidental when looked at from the present standpoint. 
On the whole, the discriminations furnish us an impor- 
tant motive, though probably subordinate to the attempts 
to secure revenue. The grant of drawbacks, and the desire 
to increase foreign trade or create new markets also fos- 
tered discrimination and acted as a check to the revenue 
aspects of the tariff legislation.^^ 

The Shipping Policy. Since there was a practical sus- 
pension of trade during the Revolution, the vessels were 
frequently fitted out as privateers; trade was too pre- 
carious to admit of many navigation regulations. With 
the restoration of peace, tonnage duties were again 
enacted, although they were reimposed somewhat earlier 
in Virginia. ^^ We have already noted the discriminations 
on goods imported in British vessels. At the same time 
and for substantially similar reasons discriminating ton- 
nage duties were enacted against vessels of foreign nations, 
particular!}^ British vessels.^^ 

New Hampshire imposed treble tonnage duties on foreign 
vessels in 1784, and in the following year British vessels 
were required to pay 5s. per ton, and a further duty of 2s. 
6d. per ton as ^' light" money. ^® Massachusetts in 1784 ex- 
empted vessels owned by citizens of the United States from 
a duty of 4d. per ton; and three years later, when a 2^/2% 

55 It is noteworthy that smuggling did not cease during this 
period. Doubtless part of the illegal trade was due to the ineffi- 
ciency of the officials administering the laws, and to the loose man< 
ner in which many of the acts were drawn. Protests are also oc- 
casionally found against the imposition of duties. — Calendar of Vir. 
State Papers, IV, 89, 112, 239-241, 245, 247, 308, 378-388. Cf. Am. 
Hist. Assn., 1896, I, 534, 535, 537, 550. 

5«Hening, Statutes of Vir., X, 511. 

57 British vessels were prohibited to load goods in New Hamp- 
shire, Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Cf. Collection of Papers 
on Navigation and Trade (1807), 55, 56. 

58 This was in addition to heavy imposts on goods imported in 
these vessels. — Laws of N. H., April 16, 1784; June 23, 1785. 



138 POLICY FROM REVOLUTION TO 1789 

duty was imposed on vessels of the United States, vessels 
not wholly OAvned by American citizens paid Is. per ton.^* 
Pennsylvania provided an additional duty of 7d. per ton 
on foreign vessels in 1784 ; in the following year a dis- 
crimination was made against vessels of Great Britain 
when a duty of 7s. 6d. per ton was imposed upon vessels 
not having commercial treaties with the United States.^^ 
Three years later, vessels from foreign ports not owned 
by citizens of any of the United States paid Is. 2d. per 
ton, which was about twice as much as the duty paid by 
American vessels.^^ Maryland, as early as 1783, imposed 
a duty of 5s. per ton on vessels of Great Britain on the 
ground that American vessels were excluded from the 
carrying trade to the British West Indies.^^ Virginia 
did not practice discriminations until 1785 when an addi- 
tional duty of 5s. per ton was imposed on ships owned 
in whole or in part by British subjects. The following 
year a duty of 2s. per ton was imposed on vessels owned 
by citizens of any of the United States, 3s. per ton on 
foreign vessels of nations having commercial treaties with 
the United States, and double that sum on foreign vessels 
of nations which did not have such treaties. These rates 
were in addition to a duty of 6d. per ton for the light- 
house.^^ The preceding year, North Carolina had pro- 
vided a similar law. Vessels of the United States and of 
nations having commercial treaties with the United States 

59 Laws of Mass., 1780-1789, 285. Rhode Island, in 1783, imposed 
8d. per ton on vessels clearing for foreign ports and half that sum 
on vessels clearing for ports in the United States. — Col. Rec. of 
R. I., IX, 708. 

•oLaws of Pa. (1784), 354; ibid (1785), 672. It was repealed in 
1786, because it was contended that this discriminating duty im- 
paired the revenue and trade of Pennsylvania, unless the neighboring 
states imposed similar duties. 

«ilbid (1788), 488. 

62 Laws of Md., 1765-1784, chap. 29. 

«3Hening, Statutes, XII, 32, 289. 



POLICY FROM REVOLUTION TO 1789 139 

were required to pay 10s. per trip if under sixty tons 
burden, and 3d. per ton if over that burden; on foreign 
vessels of nations not having treaties of commerce with the 
United States, the duty was 5s. per ton — a very dispropor- 
tionate rate.^* 

Tenche Coxe, writing in 1786, declared that in several 
of the states the tonnage duties on vessels of American 
citizens were greater than those on vessels of the state 
enacting the law, and in some instances the duty was equiv- 
alent to that imposed upon foreign vessels having '^Com- 
mercial intercourse with America." Pennsylvania, he 
continued, did not discriminate against ships of American 
citizens in any charge whatever, out of a due regard ''for 
the general Commerce of the nation.^^ Others also looked 
with disfavor upon tonnage duties on American vessels of 
neighboring states.^^ 

The tonnage duties on vessels of other states, however, 
must not be looked upon as a discrimination or retaliation, 
since the chief motive for these acts even more than in the 
colonial period, was the need of revenue for lighthouses, 
beacons and buoys. The lower tonnage duties or 

64 state Rec. of N. C, XXIV, 718. 

65 Calendar of Vir. State Papers, IV, 169 ; Col. Rec. of R. I., IX, 
708; Cooper, Statutes of S. C, IV, 582, 593, 621; Hening, Statutes of 
Vir., XI, 70, 121; cf. Bancroft, Formation of the Constitution, I, 
334, 335. 

66 At a meeting of merchants in Portsmouth, Virginia, in 1787 
they expressed surprise at the imposition of a duty of 2s. per ton 
on American vessels, especially since it was ''well known that all 
other nations are doing everything in their power to cramp and re- 
strain our Carrying Trade, and when it is known that our trade is 
under such manifold disadvantages, that every merchant in the State, 
who owns an American bottom, is actually sinking money, by them, 
or endeavoring to sell them at less than half their cost. . . . 
The Carrying Trade also, from Maryland and Carolina, must be 
effectually stopp'd, as the Tonnage on small vessels would frequently 
amount to as much as the freight of their cargoes." — Calendar of Vir. 
State Papers, IV, 240. 



140 POLICY FROM REVOLUTION TO 1789 

exemptions upon coastwise trade were not, upon the whole, 
as extensive as during the latter part of the colonial period. 

COMMERCIAL LEGISLATION BY THE CONFEDERACY. 

Attempts of Congress to Regulate Commerce. The 
states possessed sovereign powers in the matter of commer- 
cial legislation; moreover, they jealously guarded this 
power. Hence, in the Articles of Confederation, signed 
last by Maryland on the first of March, 1781, the powers of 
Congress over commercial legislation were very restricted 
in scope.^"^ The states were restrained from entering into 
treaties, confederations or alliances without the consent of 
Congress, but in two essential respects, the states did not 
delegate any real power to the central authority. These 
included the power to raise taxes ^® and the power to reg- 
ulate commerce. In these instances it could propose res- 
olutions upon which the states would then pass judgment. 
Three resolutions by Congress requesting the power to 
regulate commerce were passed ; ®^ none succeeded in se- 

67 On the subject of treaties the Articles provided that "No two 
or more States shaU enter into any treaty, confederation or alliance 
whatever between them, without the consent of the United States in 
Congress assembled, specifying accurately the purposes for which the 
same is to be entered into, and how long it shall continue. 

"No State shall lay any imposts or duties, which may interfere 
with any stipulation in treaties, entered into by the United States in 
Congress assembled, with any king, prince or state, in pursuance of 
any treaties already proposed to Congress, to the courts of France 
and Spain." — Article VI. 

68 C. J. Bullock, Finances of the U. S. from 1775 to 1789, Univ. 
of Wisconsin bulletin (1895), 118 et seq. 

69 Other commercial regulations were discussed in Congress to se- 
cure revenue or unity throughout the states. Probably the most 
important was a motion introduced by Monroe of Virginia, which 
proposed a limitation on the right of states to lay import duties on 
goods from other states; and secondly an amendment to article nine 
of the Articles of Confederation whereby Congress should have the 
power to regulate foreign commerce by import and export duties. 
Acts passed under this amendment were to be approved by repre- 



POLICY FROM REVOLUTION TO 1789 141 

curing the assent of all the states and hence did not be- 
come operative. The lack of success in this direction was 
one of the chief causes leading to the Constitution, which 
provided for a central authority with more power to act. 
On the third of February, 1781, Congress considered a 
resolution of Mr. Witherspoon, recommending to the states 
that it was absolutely necessary that it be vested with 
power to impose duties upon imports, and that no restric- 
tion should be valid unless concurred in by nine states. 
The motion was lost, but a resolution was passed the same 
day, requesting the power to impose a duty of five per 
cent upon goods of foreign growth or manufacture, with 
certain exceptions.'^^ A similar duty was also requested 
on prizes condemned in any port. The revenue was to 
be used in discharging the principal and interest of the 
public debt incurred on account of the war, while the grant 
was to continue until the debt should be paid. An urgent 
letter setting forth the necessity of the case accompanied 
this resolution to the states, and replies came in from 
some of the states within a few months. All of the states, 
except Georgia and Rhode Island, had given their assent 
by 1782, though some did so conditionally. Both were 
urged to give an immediate and definite answer. '^^ The as- 
surances of the former left no doubt as to the favorable 

sentatives of nine states in Congress and by the same number of state 
legislatures, and were to be in force for only a limited time. A re- 
port was made by the committee after three months. Monroe con- 
sidered the plan a radical change, and that delay would aid its adop- 
tion. Discussion of the measure in Congress took place July 14, 
1785, and in general the measure was opposed by the southern states, 
and supported by the northern states. Nothing came of it subse- 
quently. — Hamilton, Writings of Monroe, I, 68, 80-83, 101. 

70 Journals of Congress (1800), VIII, 22. Exceptions were pro- 
vided for arms, ammunition, clothing and other articles imported on 
account of the United States, also wool-cards and cotton-cards, wire 
used in making them, and salt. 

71 Journals of Congress, VII, 370. 



142 POLICY FROM REVOLUTION TO 1789 

action of Georgia, but Rhode Island remained silent and 
ultimately refused to grant the power to CongressJ^ 
With her refusal and the withdrawal of the consent of 
Virginia, Congress could not act, for the grant by other 
states was conditioned upon a like action by all the states. 

The necessity of raising revenue again induced Congress 
in 1783 to ask for permission to levy import duties. The 
objections of the former request were avoided, and it was 
believed that the states would consent to this one. Spe- 
cific duties were to be imposed on rum, wine, tea, pepper, 
sugar, molasses, cocoa and coffee, and an ad valorem duty 
of 5 per cent upon all other goods.'^^ The duties were to 
be applied exclusively for discharging the debt; the duty, 
however, was to cease at the end of twenty-five years if the 
debt should not be extinguished."^* As in the former in- 
stance, several states objected or granted the power condi- 
tionally. By August, 1786, all but New York had con- 
sented. The Governor of that state refused to call a 
special session of the legislature to consider this measure, 
even upon the resolution of Congress."^^ The measure 
could not, therefore, become operative. 

An attempt to regulate navigation had the same fate. 
The British orders in council restricted American trade. 
That of the second of July, 1783, was especially obnoxious 
since it restricted the trade of the British West Indies to 

72 For a discussion of the attitude of Rhode Island see F. G. Bates, 
Rhode Island and the Formation of the Union, in Columbia Univer- 
sity Studies, 1898, 73-89. Cf. also the report by Hamilton, Madison 
and Fitzsimmons on Rhode Island's objections to the impost. — Jour- 
nals of Congress, Dec. 11, 1782. 

73 Journals of Congress, VIII, 139. 

74 Accompanying this resolution was a letter prepared by Madison, 
Hamilton and Ellsworth, answering the objections to the previous 
impost, and urging the necessity of adopting the present measure. — 
Journals of Congress, VIII, 145-150. 

75 Journals of Congress, XI, 133, 145. 



POLICY FROM REVOLUTION TO 1789 143 

British vessels, owned and manned by British seamen/^ 
On April 30, 1784, Congress requested permission from 
the states to prohibit, for a period of fifteen years, any 
goods from being imported into or exported from any state 
in vessels owned or navigated by subjects of foreign 
powers not having treaties of commerce with the United 
States. Congress further requested the power to prohibit 
the subjects of foreign nations, unless authorized by 
treaty, from importing any goods not the growth or man- 
ufacture of their own country. To the provisions of this 
act, nine states were to give their consent before it could 
take effect."^^ The northern states manifested consider- 
able interest in this measure, but on the whole, the request 
met with a cold reception.^^ A committee of Congress 
(which had been appointed to investigate the laws passed 
by the states granting the power requested in 1784) found 
that Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and Virginia 
had passed such acts, but had made them inoperative until 
the other states assented. Three other states had fixed 
other dates when the act should commence; New Hamp- 
shire limited her grant to 15 years; Rhode Island and 
North Carolina had given power over imports and not ex- 
ports; the other three states had done nothing.'^^ Con- 
gress thereupon voted to present the resolution again to 
the three latter states, while New Hampshire, North Car- 
olina and Rhode Island were asked to reconsider their 
acts.®^ Conformity, however, was never obtained, and 
this attempt failed like the other two. 

76 John Adams, Works, VIII, 97. 

77 Journals of Congress, IX, 133, 134. 

78 A. C. McLaughlin, Confederation and the Constitution, 84, 85 ; 
Washington, Writings (Sparks ed.), XI, 501; Am. Hist. Assn., 1896, 
I, 728, 729. 

70 Connecticut, Pennsylvania and Maryland. 

80 Journals of Congress, XI, 31, 32. By October, 1786, all the 
states except New Hampshire and North Carolina had granted the 



144 POLICY FROM BEVOLUTION TO 1789 

One commercial power Congress did have, but even this 
power could not be properly exercised. , Through its in- 
fluence in foreign affairs and its treaty-making power, it 
appointed commercial agents abroad and secured several 
treaties of commerce and friendship with foreign nations. 
The latter, however, had a political tinge which predom- 
inated over the commercial sections. This statement is 
emphasized in considering the action of Great Britain in 
refusing to negotiate a treaty of commerce with the United 
States, so long as any one of the states could render it in- 
effectual.®^ "With France a treaty was made in 177&; 
with Holland in 1782; with Sweden in 1783; and with 
Prussia in 1785.®^ These treaties were the expression of 
attempts to create new markets in continental Europe. 
Reciprocity in the sense of reciprocal freedom of trade was 
attempted at a time when commercial restrictions were 
general. Naturally, its progress was necessarily slow. 
This principle was announced formally as early as 1778 
in the treaty of amity and commerce concluded with 
France.®^ The reciprocity idea included in this treaty 
provided that *'The Most Christian King and the United 
States engage mutually not to grant any particular favor 
to other nations, in respect of commerce and navigation, 
which shall not immediately become common to the other 
party, who shall enjoy the same favour, freely, if the con- 
cession was freely made, or on allowing the same compen- 
sation, if the concession was conditional. ' ' ^* 

power in accordance with the request of Congress; and these two 
were again urged to comply. — Ibid, XI, 189, 190. 

81 Bancroft, History of the Formation of the Constitution ( 6th 
ed.), I, 200; Report of Privy Council on Trade of Great Britain 
(1791), 5; Sheffield, Observations on American Commerce, 198, 262, 
263. 

82 Treaties and Conventions of the U. S. (1889), 296, 749, 899, 
1042. 

83 Treaties and Conventions of the U. S. (1889), 296-306; see also 
notes, ibid, 1232, 1233, 1293 et seq. 

8* Article II. The preamble of this treaty is worth noting, for the 



POLICY FROM REVOLUTION TO 1789 145 

Congress, on May 7, 1784 adopted resolutions of a tenor 
quite in accord with this treaty. Briefly, the first reso- 
lution provided that each country to a treaty should se- 
cure the right to carry its own goods in its own vessels to 
the ports of the other country, and bring back the goods 
of the latter. The tariff duties were to be on the basis of 
the most favored nation — *^ freely where it is freely 
granted to such nation, or paying the compensation, where 
such nation does the same." In the second resolution, 
which dealt with the colonial trade, provision was made 
to enable the American negotiators to secure a direct and 
similar trade with the European possessions in America, 
and if that should be impossible, then to secure such a 
concession for certain free ports. A third alternative pro- 
vided for the direct trade of the goods of the growth of 
either territory in vessels belonging to the country in which 
the goods originated.®'^ The treaties already mentioned 

contracting parties declared that in order to "fix in aif equitable and 
permanent manner the rules which ought to be follcfwed relative to 
the correspondence and commerce which the two parties desire to 
establish between their respective countries, States, and subjects, His 
Most Christian Majesty and the said United States have judged that 
the said end could not be better obtained than by taking for the 
basis of their agreement the most perfect equality and reciprocity, 
and by carefully avoiding all those burthensome preferences which 
are usually sources of debate, embarrassment and discontent ; by leav- 
ing, also, each party at liberty to make, respecting commerce and 
navigation, those interior regulations which it shall find most con- 
venient to itself; and by founding the advantage of commerce solely 
upon reciprocal utility and the just rules of free intercourse; reserv- 
ing withal to each party the liberty of admitting at its pleasure other 
nations to a participation of the same advantages." Cf. also the 
preambles to essentially similar treaties concluded with the Nether- 
lands (1782) ; Prussia (1785) ; and Sweden (1783).— Ibid, 749, 899, 
1042. The Netherlands were to be left in "the peaceful enjoyment of 
their rights in the countries, islands, and seas, in the East and West 
Indies, without any hindrance or molestation." 

85 Secret Journals of Congress (1821), III, 484, 485. For other 
provisions see Ibid, 485-489. 



146 POLICY FROM REVOLUTION TO 1789 

were concluded practically along the lines of the first res- 
olution. 

The Annapolis and Fedet^al Conventions, Congress ev- 
idently could do little to regulate commerce under such 
lack of harmony and unity. The impotence of Congress 
was the cause of considerable unrest and discussion on the 
part of many people throughout the Union.®® The An- 
napolis convention was a direct result of this feeling. 
Virginia, New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania and New 
York were represented.^^ The delegates considered the 
federal government inefficient, and recommended to the 
States the calling of a convention at Philadelphia in May, 
1787. Alterations were to be made to the Articles to pro- 
vide adequately for the exigencies of government — after 
they had been agreed to by Congress and the States.^® It 
was believed that unless more power was given to Congress 
to regulate commerce, little good would be accomplished. 

There was much dispute in the federal convention as 
to the extent of power which should be given to Congress, 
in which sectional interests, economic and political, played 

86 See, e. g., Report of Amer. Hist. Assn., 1896, I, 717-719, 724, 
725, 728; Jefferson, Writings (Ford ed.). Ill, 347, 351, 398; John- 
ston, Corres. and Public Papers of Jay, III, 178, 179; Hamilton, 
Writings of Monroe, I, 53-55, 59, 80-86, 97-99; articles in contempo- 
rary newspapers. 

87 Resolutions calling for a convention were presented in the Vir- 
ginia legislature, January 21, 1786. The convention was "to take into 
consideration the trade of the United States, to examine the relative 
situation and trade of the said states, to consider how far a uniform 
system in their commercial regulations may be necessary to their 
interest and permanent harmony, and to report to the several states 
such an act relative to this great object as, when unanimously rati- 
fied by them, will enable the United States in Congress effectually to 
provide for the same;" — The resolutions as well as the proceedings of 
the commissioners at the convention are in Elliot, Debates on the 
Federal Constitution, I, 115-119. See also Pa. Archives, XI, 521, 
522; Calendar of Vir. State Papers, IV, 117. 

88 Journals of Congress. 



POLICY FROM REVOLUTION TO 1789 147 

a prominent part.^^ As finally adopted, Congress was 
given paramount control over interstate and foreign com- 
merce ^^ — more potential power, perhaps, than the ma- 
jority of delegates at the convention suspected, if we view 
the question of federal regulation of commerce from the 
present standpoint. The treaty-making power was vested 
exclusively in the federal government, and treaties were 
to form part of the supreme law of the land.^^ Congress 
was further empowered to lay and collect duties on the 
condition that they must be uniform throughout the 
United States.^- Nevertheless, Congress was not permitted 
to give any preference by any regulation of commerce or 
revenue to ports of one state over those of another, nor 
could vessels bound to, or from, a state be compelled to 
enter, clear or pay duties in another.^^ States were for- 
bidden, without the consent of Congress, to impose import 
or export duties, except what was absolutely essential for 
carrying out the inspection laws, — and the net revenue 
from such duties was to be covered into the federal treas- 
ury.^* Similarly, the states were forbidden, without the 
consent of Congress, to impose tonnage duties.^^ By a 
compromise arrangement duties could not be imposed on 
articles exported from any state; Congress could not pro- 
fit The history and development of each clause of the constitution 
in the convention is briefly traced out by Meigs in the Growth of 
the Constitution in the Federal Convention of 1787. The debates at 
length are in Elliot, Debates on the Federal Constitution, and in the 
Documentary History of the Constitution of the U. S. The standard 
work for the period is Bancroft, History of the Formation of the Con- 
stitution. Cf. also volume I of Curtis, Constitutional History of the 
United States. 

90 Article I, sec. 8, clause 3. 

»i Article I, see. 10, clause 1; article II, sec. 2, clause 2; article 
VI, clause 2. 

«2 Article I, sec. 8, clause 1. 

93 Ibid, sec. 9, clause 6. 

9* Ibid, sec. 10, clause 2. 

95 Ibid, sec. 10, clause 3. 



148 POLICY FROM REVOLUTION TO 1789 

hibit the importation of slaves before 1808, but could im- 
pose a tax not exceeding ten dollars on such importation; 
while Congress was permitted to pass navigation acts by 
majority vote, which had been opposed by the Southern 
States.^« 

A review of the legislation of the period from the Rev- 
olution shows us that the changing conditions — economic 
and political — made necessary changes in the laws. The 
independence of the United States made thirteen sover- 
eign states, each with the power to enact commercial leg- 
islation according to its own interests. Little could be 
done in the way of united action ; that was clearly demon- 
strated when Congress asked for permission to levy imposts 
and to provide a navigation act. The conditions of the 
time, with the consequent discriminations and retaliations, 
showed that harmonious action would not be promoted by 
so many sovereign units. A stronger federal government 
was essential, and as one of its most important perquisites, 
the general regulation of commerce was conferred upon it, 
but not without much misgiving.^^ 

96 Ibid, sec. 9, clauses 1 and 5. Gouverneur Morris said that 
"These things may form a bargain among the Northern and Southern 
States." Hildreth calls it the third great compromise of the consti- 
tution. For a discussion see Hildreth, History of the U. S. (rev. ed.), 
Ill, 509-520. Cf. Report of Amer. Hist. Assn., 1903, I, 74. 

97 See the Federalist for forcible discussions of the inadequacy of 
the Confederacy, and the utility of the Union to political prosperity. 



CHAPTER VII 
CONCLUSIONS 

The facts presented in the preceding pages show us 
that trade regulations were of importance in practically 
all of the thirteen colonies. There was quite naturally a 
difference of emphasis and a difference in the ex- 
tent of legislation, but the same could be said 
for practically any similar group of states or legis- 
lative bodies. The geographical conditions made the col- 
onies dependent upon navigation as the prevalent means of 
transportation and communication. The nature of the 
soil and the climate in the New England colonies contrib- 
uted materially to emphasizing the trade and navigation 
which led inevitably to the regulation of commerce. In 
the middle and southern colonies soil and climate were 
more favorable for agriculture, and the staples furnished 
good and indeed necessary commodities for export to pay 
for English manufactures. 

The economic background can be explained chiefly with 
reference to the English colonial system, which was 
worked out under the influence of mercantilism. All of the 
European countries having colonies in the new world or 
in the Orient, during the period under review, regulated 
their possessions with the idea of developing practically 
exclusive markets for home manufactures. The colonies 
were to furnish raw materials and to settle net deficits in 
specie. The immediate purpose was practically economic, 
the ulterior motive may have been political, i. e., the desire 

149 



150 CONCLUSIONS 

for national power. Great Britain was not an exception 
to the rule, although it has been asserted that her colonial 
policy was less illiberal than that of any other European 
nation. The navigation acts; the enumeration of goods 
which could only be exported to English markets; the 
bounties on naval stores; the restriction of manufactures; 
the drawbacks, duties, etc. — all were parts of her general 
commercial policy. Governors were instructed to cause 
the acts of trade to be strictly enforced, and were often 
active in suggesting to the colonial assemblies methods of 
increasing the trade with England, particularly by means 
of bounties to be offered to the inhabitants of the legis- 
lating colony to provide a commodity which could be ex- 
ported to England to pay for manufactures. Moreover, 
collectors and other customs officers were provided in the 
several colonies to insure due observance of the acts of 
trade and navigation. 

The supervision of these matters by the home govern- 
ment was given over to the privy council, under which in 
1696 a permanent organization — ^the Board of Trade and 
Plantations — was established. During the first few dec- 
ades of the eighteenth century, at least, its activities 
caused the rejection of numerous trade regulations, many 
of which were deemed to have been enacted by the colonial 
assemblies in violation of the acts of trade and navigation. 
The latter bodies were forbidden by charter provisions in 
the corporate colonies and by instructions to Governors in 
the royal provinces, to enact laws repugnant to acts of 
Parliament — hence the necessity for an administrative 
body in the home government. 

Under such limitations only, were the colonies enabled 
to legislate for their own welfare. Their most important 
commercial legislation was occasioned chiefly by fiscal 
reasons. The tariff legislation in several of the colonies 
developed into a veritable system and the revenue which 



CONCLUSIONS 151 

was derived served to supplement the proceeds of direct 
taxation for the support of the government. In excep- 
tional instances duties were not imposed for revenue, but 
were intended to be prohibitive, as in the case of the few 
retaliatory acts which were passed, and also some of the 
duties on negro slaves. Likewise the tonnage duties were 
imposed for the support of the government, at first to help 
build fortifications, and later to facilitate commerce by- 
means of lighthouses, beacons and buoys. Probably New 
York and the southern colonies, except Georgia, secured 
more revenue from indirect taxes in proportion to their 
total revenue than was the case in the other colonies. 

The staple products of the New England colonies were 
exported chiefly to the West Indies and to southern Eu- 
rope ; those of the middle colonies to the same destinations 
as well as to the continental colonies, while furs were sent 
to Europe; in the southern colonies, England was the 
chief market, except for rice which could be sent during 
most of the period to southern Europe. To insure the 
quality of these staple commodities it was essential that 
inspection regulations should be adopted. Moreover, nu- 
merous attempts were made to encourage the production 
of certain articles by means of bounties. In the northern 
colonies the main effort seems to have been concentrated 
upon certain commodities like hemp and flax, which could 
be worked up in the household. The southern colonies, 
however, sought to diversify production by bounties upon 
such products as wine, silk, and shipbuilding, but in most 
instances they were to a large degree unsuccessful. In 
Maryland and Virginia the staple was tobacco; further 
south, rice, indigo and naval stores were important. 
These furnished the chief means for subsistence ; anything 
else, like silk and wine, was scarcely fitted, economically 
speaking, for the people or the soil. The approach of the 
Revolution tended to emphasize the grant of bounties. 



152 CONCLUSIONS 

public and private, for hemp, flax and wool, which were 
worked up into wearing apparel. 

Since the means of communication for trade purposes 
at least were practically limited to water transportation, a 
body of navigation and port regulations developed in all 
of the colonies. In part, these regulations were provided 
by England, but in the main, by the colonial assemblies. 
The various phases of these regulations were all essential 
for the proper control of commerce, England was espe- 
cially interested in the problem of ports of entry and the 
regulation of the fees of the collector and other customs 
officers who were responsible to her for the enforcement 
of the parliamentary acts of trade and navigation. Other- 
wise, in the enactment of navigation regulations the colo- 
nial assemblies were comparatively free from interference 
by the home government; most of the disputes occurred 
between the Governor and the council on the one hand, 
and the Assembly on the other; relatively few went far- 
ther. 

The colonies did not observe strictly the parliamentary 
acts of trade and navigation. In the main, however, their 
chief trade relations were with England and the British 
West Indies. The Revolution interrupted trade, and com- 
mercial legislation on the part of the states dwindled down. 
to insignificant proportions, with the exception of the em- 
bargoes. Before the war was over the states sought to 
create new markets, and continued these attempts subse- 
quent to the war. The economic factors — cheap goods 
from England, long terms of credit, the lack of suitable 
or rather sufficient home industries — were against them. 
Since peace made the thirteen states sovereign and in- 
dependent, England's colonial policy was enforced against 
the states. They considered this in the light of a discrim- 
ination, and sought to retaliate. Various expedients were 
used, and it was the outcome of these conditions that led to 



CONCLUSIONS 153 

the encouragement of home industries in the northern 
states — a system which was developed during the constitu- 
tional period. The very fact that the states were sover- 
eign, and regulated their commerce practically from the 
standpoint of self-interest, revealed the weakness of the 
Confederacy. Congress again and again attempted to se- 
cure the consent of the states to carry out uniform tariff 
or shipping regulation; its efforts were practically fruit- 
less. Yet this weakness led to the constitutional conven- 
tion, and the grant of greater powers to the central 
government, particularly over interstate and foreign com- 
merce. 

The commercial legislation for the period subsequent to 
the Eevolution has been treated at length, and properly 
so, in historical works. That for the earlier period has 
received very little attention. This is all the more strik- 
ing on account of the importance that attaches to the eco- 
nomic conditions throughout the whole period. Although 
the number of inhabitants in the several colonies never 
was very large, viewed from our present standpoint, their 
location and their dependence on trade and navigation 
led the colonies to provide numerous commercial regula- 
tions — much more than we are sometimes inclined to sup- 
pose. Moreover, many of these regulations were incorpo- 
rated directly into our federal legislation, or formed the 
basis of such enactments. 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 

The following bibliography represents a partial list of the 
works consulted in the preparation of this monograph. 

A. LAWS AND PUBLIC RECORDS. 

Connecticut: The Public Records of the Colony of Connecti- 
cut. 15 vols., 1636-1776. Ed. by J. H. Trumbull and C. J. 
Hoadley. Hartford, 1850-1890. 

The Blue Laws of Connecticut: A collection of the earliest 
statutes and judicial proceedings of that colony. Ed. by S. N. 
Smucker. Phila., 1861. 

The Code of 1650, being a compilation of the earliest laws and 
orders of the General Court of Connecticut. Hartford, 1822. 

The Laws of Connecticut: An Exact Reprint of the Original 
Edition of 1673, With a Prefatory Note by George Brinley. 
Hartford, 1865. 

Acts and Laws of His Majesty's English Colony of Connecti- 
cut in New-England in America. New London, 1750. 

Acts and Laws of His Majesty's English Colony of Connecti- 
cut in New-England, in America. New London, 1769. (The 
volume in the Charlemagne Tower collection at the Pennsylvania 
Historical Society rooms also contains sessional laws to 1782.) 

Acts and Laws of the State of Connecticut in America. New 
London. (Bound in this volume, in the Charlemagne Tower col- 
lection, are also sessional laws to 1793.) 

Delaware : Laws of the Government of New Castle, Kent and 
Sussex Upon Delaware, Published by Order of the Assembly. 
Phila., 1741. 

Laws of the Government of New-Castle, Kent and Sussex, 
Upon Delaware. Published by order of the Assembly. Phila., 
1752. . 

154 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 155 

Laws of the Government of New-Castle, Kent and Sussex, 
Upon Delaware, Vol. II. Wilmington, 1763. Compiled by Thos. 
McKean and Cassar Rodney. 

Laws of the State of Delaware. Published by Authority. 2 
vols. New Castle, 1797. 

Georgia: A Digest of the Laws of the State of Georgia. 
From its first establishment as a British Province down to the 
year 1798. Robert and George Watkins. Phila., 1800. 

Acts passed by the General Assembly of the Colony of Georgia, 
1755 to 1774. Now First Printed. Wormsloe, 1881. 

The Colonial Records of the State of Georgia, 1732-1782. 
Compiled by A. D. Candler. 15 vols. Atlanta, 1904-1907. 

Maryland: Laws of Maryland at large, with proper Indexes. 
Thomas Bacon. Annapolis, 1765. 

A Compleat Collection of the Laws of Maryland. Collected 
and Printed by Authority. Annapolis, 1727. 

Laws of Maryland, Made Since 1763. Annapolis, 1787. 

The Laws of Maryland, to which are prefixed the original char- 
ter. Compiled by Wm. Kilty. Annapolis, 1799-1800. 2 vols. 

Archives of Maryland including Proceedings of the Assembly, 
1637-1710, in nine volumes; Proceedings of the Council, 1636- 
1731, in eight volumes; Correspondence of Governor Sharpe, 
1753-1771, in three volumes. Baltimore, 1883. 

Massachusetts: The Colonial Laws of Massachusetts. Re- 
printed from the edition of 1672, with the supplements through 
1686. Under the supervision of W. H. Whitmore. Boston, 1887. 

The Acts and Resolves of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, 
1692-1780. Vols. 1-5. Boston, 1869-1886. 

Laws of Massachusetts (in Charlemagne Tower collection). 

The Perpetual Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 
1780-1789. Adams and Nourse. Boston, 1789. 

Records of the Governor and Assembly of the Massachusetts 
Bay in New England. Edited by N. B. Shurtleff, 1628-1686. 
5 vols. Boston, 1887. 

Records of the Colony of New Plymouth in New England. 
Edited by David Pulsifer. Laws, 1623-1682. Boston, 1861. 



156 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

New Hampshire: Laws of New Hampshire, including pubKc 
and private acts and resolves and the royal commissions and in- 
structions, with historical and descriptive notes. Ed. by A. S. 
Batchellor. Province period. Manchester, N. H., 1904. Vol. I. 

Acts and Laws, Passed by the General Court or Assembly of 
His Majesties Province of New-Hampshire in New-England. 
Boston, 1716. 

Acts and Laws, Passed by the General Court or Assembly of 
His Majesties Province of New Hampshire in New-England. 
Boston, 1726. 

Acts and Laws of His Majesty's Province of New-Hampshire. 
Portsmouth, 1771. 

Acts and Laws of the State of New Hampshire, from the ses- 
sion of the General-Court, July, 1776 to 1789. Portsmouth, 1789. 

Sessional laws (1780-1789) in the Charlemagne Tower collec- 
tion. 

Documents and Records relating to the Province of New Hamp- 
shire. 

Provincial Papers, 1623-1776; State Papers, 1776-1789. Ed. 
by Nathaniel Bouton. 

New Jersey: The Grants, Concessions and Original Constitu- 
tions of the Province of New-Jersey, and the Acts Passed during 
the Proprietary Governments. Aaron Learning and Jacob Spicer. 
Phila. 

Acts of the General Assembly of the Province of New-Jersey. 
1702-1776. Samuel AUinson. Burlington, 1776. 

Acts of the General Assembly of the State of New-Jersey. 
1776-1783. Peter Wilson. Trenton, 1784. 

Documents relating to the colonial history of the State of New- 
Jersey. Edited by W. A. Whitehead et al. 1st series, 1631- 
1776; vols. I-X, general; 1704-1750, XI and XII, newspaper ex- 
tracts; 1682-1775, XIII-XVIII, Journal of the Governor and 
Council. 

New York: Laws and Ordinances of New Netherland, 1638- 
1674. Ed. by E. B. O'Callaghan. Albany, 1868. 

The Colonial Laws of New York from the year 1664 to the 
Revolution. 5 vols. Albany, 1886-1894. 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 157 

" Laws of New York (1778-1789) in the Charlemagne Tower col- 
lection. Journal of the Legislative Council of the Colony of New 
York, 1691-1775. 2 vols. Albany, 1861. 

Documents relative to the Colonial History of New York. Ed. 
by E. B. O'Callaghan. 11 vols. Albany, 1856-1861. 

North Carolina: The Colonial Records of North Carolina. 
Ed. by W. L. Saunders, 1662-1776. 10 vols. Raleigh, 1886-1890. 

The State Records of North Carolina. Ed. by Walter Clark. 
Vols. XXIII-XXV. 

Pennsylvania: Charter to William Penn and Laws of the 
Province of Pennsylvania passed between the years 1682 and 
1700. Published under the direction of J. B. Linn. Harrisburg, 
1879. 

The Statutes at Large of Pennsylvania from 1682 to 1782. 
Compiled by J. T. Mitchell and Henry Flanders. Vols. II-XI. 
1896-1906. 

The Acts of Assembly of the Province of Pennsylvania. 
Phila., 1776. 

Sessional laws (1770-1790) in the Charlemagne Tower collec- 
tion. 

Votes and Proceedings of the House of Representatives of 
Pennsylvania, 1682-1767. 5 vols. Phila., 1752-1775. 

Minutes of the Council of Pennsylvania, 1683-1790. 16 vols. 
Harrisburg, 1852-1853. 

Pennsylvania Archives, 1664-1790. 12 vols, and index. Ed. 
by Samuel Hazard. Philadelphia, 1852-1856. 

Pennsylvania Archives, fourth series. Papers of the Gov- 
ernors. Ed. by G. E. Reed. Vols. I-III. Harrisburg, 1900. 

Pennsylvania Archives, second series. Edited by W. H. Egle. 
The Breviate : in the boundary dispute between Pennsylvania and 
Maryland. Vol. XVI. Harrisburg, 1890. 

Rhode Island: Records of the Colony of Rhode Island and 
Providence Plantations, in New England. Ed. by J. R. Bartlett. 
10 vols. Providence, 1856-1865. 

Acts and Laws Of His Majesty's Colony of Rhode-Island, and 
Providence-Plantations, in America. Newport, 1730. 

Acts and Laws Of His Majesty's Colony of Rhode-Island, and 



158 BIBLIOGEAPHT 

Providence-Plantations, in New-England, in America. Newport, 
1745. 

Acts and Laws Of His Majesty's Colony of Rhode-Island, and 
Providence-Plantations, in New-England, in America. 1745-1752. 
Newport, 1752. 

Acts and Laws of The English Colony of Rhode Island and 
Providence-Plantations, in New England, in America. Newport, 
1767. (Revision.) 

Acts and Laws of the English Colony of Rhode Island and 
Providence-Plantations in New-England, in America Made and 
passed since the revision in June, 1767. Newport, 1772. 

Sessional laws in the Charlemagne Tower collection. 

South Carolina : The Laws of the Province of South Carolina, 
In Two Parts. Nicholas Trott. Charlestown, 1736. 

The Statutes at Large of South Carolina. Ed. by Thomas 
Cooper. Vols. I-VII. Columbia, S. C, 1836-1839. 

Virginia: The Statutes at Large; being a Collection of the 
Laws of Virginia. W. W. Hening. Vols. I-XIII. Richmond, 
1823. 

Calendar of Virginia State Papers and other Manuscripts pre- 
served in the capitol at Richmond. Arranged by W. P. Pahner, 
1652-1789. 4 vols. Richmond, 1875-1884. 

Journals of Congress: Published by Authority. 13 vols. 
Phila., 1800. 

Secret Journals of the Acts and Proceedings of Congress. 4 
vols., Boston, 1821. 

Several series of the Calendar of State Papers (particularly 
the America and West India Series) will be of great value on 
imperial relations and colonial laws when brought down to a later 
date. 

B. GENERAL SOURCES. 

Select Letters on the Trade and Government of America; and 
the Principles of Law and Polity applied to the American Colo- 
nies. Written by Governor Bernard, at Boston, 1763-1768. 
London, 1774. 

Letters of Phineas Bond, in Reports of the American Historical 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 159 

Association, 1896, I, 513-659 (covering the years 1787-1789); 
1897, 454-568 (covering the years 1790-1794). 

Burnaby, Andrew, Travels through the middle settlements of 
North America, 1759-1760. Edition of 1904, New York. 

Historical Collections of South Carolina; embracing many rare 
and valuable pamphlets, and other documents, relating to the 
history of that state, from its first discovery to 1776. Compiled, 
with notes and an introduction, by B. R. Carroll. 2 vols. N. Y., 
1836. 

Chalmers, George, Political Annals. Continued in Collections 
of the New York Historical Society, 1868. N. Y., 1868. 

, Opinions of Eminent Lawyers, on various points of 

English Jurisprudence, chiefly concerning the Colonies, Fisheries 
and Commerce of Great Britain. 2 vols. London, 1814. 

Elliot, J., Debates on the Federal Constitution. 5 vols. Phila., 
1891. 

Letters of Stephen Higginson, 1783-1804, in Reports of the 
American Historical Association, 1896, I, 704-841. 

Hutchinson, Thomas, The History of Massachusetts from the 
first Settlement in 1628 until 1774. Vols. I (3rd ed.) printed at 
Salem; vol. 11 (3rd ed.) at Boston, 1795; vol. IH, at London, 
1798. 

Kimball, G. S., The Correspondence of the Colonial Governors 
of Rhode Island, 1723-1775. 2 vols. Boston, 1902-1903. 

, Correspondence of William Pitt with Colonial Govern- 
ors and Military and Naval Commissioners in America. 2 vols. 
N. Y., 1906. 

Lind, John, Remarks on the Principal Acts of the Thirteenth 
Parliament of Great Britain. Vol. I contains remarks on the 
acts relating to the colonies with a plan of reconciliation. Lon- 
don, 1775. 

MacPherson, David, Annals of Commerce, Containing the Com- 
mercial Transactions of the British Empire and other countries, 
from the earliest accounts to the meeting of the Union Parliament 
in January, 1801. 4 vols. London, 1805. 

Poore, B. P., The Federal and State Constitutions, Colonial 
Charters and other Organic Laws of the United States. 2 vols. 
2nd edition. Washington, 1878. 



160 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Pownall, Thomas, The Administration of the British Colonies. 
2 vols. 5th edition. London, 1774. 

Randolph Edward, in the Publications of the Prince Society. 
5 vols. Boston, 1898-1899. Includes his letters and official 
papers from the colonies, 1676-1703, with historical illustrations 
and a memoir. 

Sheffield, J. B. H., Lord, Observations on the Commerce of the 
American States. Enlarged edition with appendix. London, 
1784. 

Smith, Adam, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the 
Wealth of Nations. Ed. by E. G. Wakefield. 4 vols. London, 
1843. 

Treaties and Conventions concluded between the United States 
and other Powers since July 4, 1776. Washington, 1889. 

Report of a Committee of the Lords of the Privy Council on 
the trade of Great Britain with the United States, January, 1791. 
Printed, 1888, Department of State, Washington. Also in Col- 
lection of Reports and Papers on the Navigation and Trade of 
Great Britain. London, 1807. The collection includes also a 
report of the Privy Council of May 31, 1784 on the representa- 
tions of West India planters to secure free intercourse in Amer- 
ican bottoms. 

C. SECONDARY AUTHORITIES. 

1. General Histories, 

Arnold, S. G., History of the State of Rhode Island and Provi- 
dence Plantations. Vol. I, 1636-1700, K Y., 1859 ; Vol. II, 1700- 
1790 (3rd ed.), N. Y., 1878. 

Andrews, C. M., Colonial Self-Government, 1652-1689, in 
American Nation Series. N. Y., 1904. 

Bancroft, Geo., History of the Formation of the Constitution 
of the United States of America. 2 vols. N. Y., 1882. 

Bates, F. G, Rhode Island and the Formation of the Union, in 
Columbia Univ. Studies, Vol. X, No. 2, 1898. 

Belknap, J., The History of New Hampshire. 3 vols. Boston, 
179 -1792. 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 161 

Bogart, E. L., The Economic History of the United States. 
N. Y., 1907. 

Bruce, P. A., Economic History of Virginia in the Seventeenth 
Century. 2 vols. N. Y., 1895-1907. 

Egerton, H. E., A Short History of British Colonial Policy. 
London, 1897. 

Greene, E. B., The Provincial Governor in the English Colonies 
of North America, in Harvard Historical Studies, vol. 7. N. Y., 
1898. 

Hertz, G. B., The Old Colonial System. Pubs, of Univ. of Man- 
chester, 1905. 

Hawks, F. L., History of North Carolina, 1584-1729. 2 vols. 
(2nd ed.) Fayetteville, 1857-1858. 

Hildreth. (Rev. ed.) History of the United States. 

Jones, C. C, The History of Georgia. 2 vols. Boston, 1883. 

McCrady, Edward, The History of South Carolina, 1670-1783. 
4 vols. N. Y., 1897-1902. 

McLaughlin, A. C, The Confederation and the Constitution, 
1783-1789, in American Nation Series. N. Y, 1905. 

Mead, N. P., Connecticut as a Corporate Colony, in Columbia 
University publications. Lancaster, 1906. 

Meigs, Wm. M., The Growth of the Constitution in the Federal 
Convention of 1787. Phila., 1900. 

Mereness, N. D., Maryland as a Proprietary Province, in Co- 
lumbia University Studies. N. Y., 1901. 

Osgood, H. L., The American Colonies in the Seventeenth 
Century, 3 vols. N. Y, 1904-1907. 

Raper, C. L., North Carolina : A study in English Colonial Gov- 
ernment. N. Y., 1904. Chapters 2, 3, 4, and 9 appear in Colum- 
bia University Studies, 1902. Printed at Chapel Hill, 1901. 

Smith, Samuel, The History of the Colony of Nova-Csesaria or 
New Jersey. Burlington, 1765. 

Smith, W. R., South Carolina as a Royal Province, 1719-1776, 
in Columbia University publications. N. Y., 1903. 

Weeden, W. B., Economic and Social History of New England, 
1620-1789. 2 vols. Boston, 1891. 



162 BIBLIOGRAPHY 

2. Monographs, 

Ashley, W. J., Historical Surveys. 

Bagnall, W. R., The Textile Industries of the United States. 
Vol. 1, 1639-1810. Cambridge, 1893. 

Beer, G. L., The Commercial Policy of England toward the 
American Colonies, in Columbia University Studies, III, No. 2. 
N. Y., 1893. 

— ^ , British Colonial Policy, 1754-1765. N. Y, 1907. 

Bishop, J. L., A History of American Manufactures from 1608- 
1860. 2 vols. Phila., 1861-1864. 

Bullock, C. J., The Finances of the United States from 1775 
to 1789, with special reference to the budget. Bulletin of the 
University of Wisconsin. Madison, 1895. 

Douglas., C. H. J., The Financial History of Massachusetts 
from the organization of the Massachusetts Bay Colony to the 
American Revolution, in Columbia University Studies, I, No. 4. 
N. Y, 1892. 

DuBois, W. E. B., The Suppression of the African Slave- 
Trade to the United States, 1638-1870, in Harvard Historical 
Studies, vol. I. N. Y, 1896. 

Elliott, 0. L., The Tariff Controversy in the United States, 
1789-1833, with a summary of the period before the adoption of 
the Constitution. In Leland Stanford University publications. 
Palo Alto, 1892. 

Fisher, W. C, American Trade Regulations before 1789, in 
Reports of the American Historical Association, vol. III. 

Goss, J. D., The History of Tariff Administration in the United 
States, from colonial times to the McKinley Administration bill, 
in Columbia University Studies, I, No. 2. N. Y., 1891. 

Hill, William, The First Stages of the Tariff Policy of the 
United States, in Publications of the American Economic Associa- 
tion, 1893. 

Lord, E. L., Industrial Experiments in the British Colonies 
of North America, in Johns Hopkins University Studies. Balto., 
1898. 

Rabbeno, Ugo, The American Commercial Policy. 2nd ed. 
(translation). London, 1895. 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 163 

Ripley, W. Z., The Financial History of Virginia, in Columbia 
University Studies, IV, No. 1. N. Y., 1893. 

Robinson, M. H., A History of Taxation in New Hampshire, in 
Reports of the American Economic Association, 1902. 

Schmoller, Gustav, The Mercantile System and its Historical 
Significance. In Economic Classics, edited by W. J. Ashley. 
N. Y, 1897. 

Sumner, W. G., The Financier and the Finances of the Ameri- 
can Revolution. 2 vols. N. Y., 1891. 



INDEX 



''Act for Ports," 106. 

Acts, for encouragement of trade, 
8; restricting exports, 7; re- 
taliatory, 40. 

Administrative machinery, for 
enforcement of acts, 108; lack 
of efficient, 109; commissions 
for. 111. 

Admiralty courts, 107. 

Annapolis, Convention of, 146. 

Bibliography, 154-163. 

Board of Trade and Plantations, 
establishment of, 150; super- 
vision by, 13. 

Bounties, 59; export, occasional, 
73; for exportation, 71; for 
production, 60; not always 
successful, 62; on provisions, 
68; on shipbuilding, 69. 

"Castle duties," 87. 

Colonial laws, commercial divi- 
sion of, 13. 

Colonial legislation, super\4sion 
of, 9. 

Colonies, early charter require- 
ments for, 12; chief trade rela- 
tions of, 152; intended for 
England's own benefit, 16; per- 
mitted to legislate for their 
own needs, 11; types of, in 
America, 9. 

Commerce, attempts of Congress 
to regulate, 140; power of 
Congress over, 147. 



Commercial agents abroad, 144. 
Commercial legislation, by the 

Confederacy, 140; by the 

states, 123; classification of, 

18. 
Commercial policy, development 

of England's, 3. 

Direct trade, legislation on, 22; 
duties on, 21. 

Discrimination, against British 
goods, 129; of duties by the 
colonies, 30; in duties on im- 
ports, 128. 

Drawbacks, 41. 

Embargo acts, administration of, 
84. 

Embargoes, 80; as a war meas- 
ure, 4, 82; during the Revo- 
lution, 123; for short periods, 
124. 

English goods, and imposts 
thereon, 26. 

English merchant, opposition to 
interests of, 28. 

"Enumerated" commodities, 20; 
exportation of, 5. 

Export duties, importance of, 44, 
57; purpose of, 43; scope of, 
42. 

Exports, acts restricting, 7 ; chief 
destination of, 151. 



Federal convention of 1787, 146. 
Free trade, 36. 



165 



166 



INDEX 



French, trade with, 83. 

Governors, instructions to, 15. 
Grenville ministry, policy of, to- 
wards colonies, 8. 

Home manufactures, aid to, 131. 

Import duties on direct trade, 
21; scope of, 18. 

Importation of goods, 36. 

Indians, trade with, 54. 

Inspection laws, administrative 
effects of, 79; inspection regu- 
lations, 74. 

Lumber, export duties on, 49. 

Mercantile system, fundamental 

characteristics of, 1. 
"Molasses Act," 7. 

Navigation, act of 1651, 3; at- 
tempts of Congress to regu- 
late, 142; regulations, 100. 

Negro plot of 1711, 35. 

Pilotage, 118; compulsory and 
optional, 121; laws, 119. 

Pilots, appointment and duties 
of, 118. 

Port, control, 100; fees, a prac- 
tice opposed to, 117; fees, ex- 
tent and policy of, 113. 

Port regulations, 100. 

Port Wardens, Board of, in 
Philadelphia, in 1766, 120. 

Ports, of entry, 100; Maryland, 
limitation of, 105; Perth 
Amboy, contest over, 103. 

" Powder money," 87. 

Preferential duties, 8. 

Reciprocity principle in 1778, 

144. 
Registry of vessels, 112. 



Restrictions upon commodities, 
6. 

Retaliatory acts, 40. 

Revolution, embargoes during 
the, 123; shipping policy dur- 
ing the, 137. 

Shipping, embargoes on, 83; 
home, exemptions to, 90; in- 
dustry, favoring of, 23; policy, 
during the Revolution, 137; 
protection of, 4. 

Ships, of other colonies, exemp- 
tions to, 96; measurements of, 
113. 

Silk, bounties on, 65. 

Skins and furs, export duties on, 
53. 

Slaves, import duties on, 31; 
New York's legislation on, 34; 
no general unity of legislation 
on, 32; tendency of legisla- 
tion on, 35; 

Southern colonies, exemptions to 
home shipping by, 94; more 
ports in, 102; trade system of, 
39. 

Stamp Act, 9. 

" Sugar Bill " of 1764, 9. 

Tariff, features of, discrimination 
in, 134; important features 
of, 131; for home protection, 
instituted by northern states, 
131. 

Tariff legislation, 125; compli- 
cated by export duties in 
southern states, 135; motives 
for, 126, 136; system of New 
York, 37; elaborate in South 
Carolina, 39. 

Tenche Coxe, statement of, re- 
garding tonnage duties, 139. 

Tobacco, export duties on, 45; 
inspection laws for, 77. 

Tonnage duties, and English 



p 



INDEX 



167 



ships, 88; not imposed in mid- 
dle colonies, 92; purpose of, 
86. 
Trade regulations, importance of, 
in the colonies, 149. 



Washington's aid to home manu- 
factures, 131. 

Wines and spirituous liquors, 
duties on, 19, 26. 



H.171 84 










* .^^'"^, 



^5°^ 




'*o^ 








) 






















/% 









j.'^ 
'^a^ 









°^ *-^' ^0^ V*"^* \^ s.. 



^^. ""•'* a'^ .„. <t. 









iSjK/ 



0^ 




